creating new elements.

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by sunshaker, May 15, 2014.

  1. sunshaker Registered Member

    Messages:
    84
    Recently GSI laboratory in Germany created a few atoms of element 117,http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/superheavy-element-117-island-of-stability/

    I notice they used calcium(z20) an alkaline earth metal and berkelium(z97) an actiniod,
    Is there a reason they used an alkaline earth metal to accelerate?

    I was wondering if the next step could be to use barium(z56) also an alkaline earth metal and terbium(z65)which is an lanthanoid, to produce z121,

    Or could they once again use berkelium(z97) and the next alkaline earth metal which is strontium(z38) has they have already had success with berkelium., which could leapfrog us to element (z135)?


    View attachment 7106
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559
    why is this in pseudoscience? it is a legit physics question.

    the choice of target and accelerated nucleus is dependent on availability, ease of use, half-life, and to a lesser extent, the presumed ability of the nuclei to fuse.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    sunshaker, if you have no objection, I would like to have this moved to the Chemistry or perhaps Physics forum
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sunshaker Registered Member

    Messages:
    84
    I am so used to posting in speculation/pseudoscience, That i thought i better place it here when talking about theorized elements, I have no objection if you wish to move it.
    Has Walter says "the choice of target and accelerated nucleus is dependent on availability, ease of use, half-life, and to a lesser extent, the presumed ability of the nuclei to fuse"
    As i notice it took 2 years to build up a stock of berkelium, and it as a half life of 330 days, i would not expect this to be an element of choice in these experiments, Or is because berkelium is an element in transition that makes it a good candidate for this type of experiment,

    Also if it took 2 years to produce enough for this experiment(13 MILLIGRAMS) but has a half life of 330days, Woundn't that mean they where always playing catch up, as what they had would already decay into lower elements?


    I was also wondering but cannot find any information, Would or is the target element held under pressure, would this then slow down it's decay rate?
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2014
  8. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,889
    No that would not be a problem. Lets say that they could make 1000 atoms a day.

    After 330 days they would only have 500 of the atoms left from the first day. From day 165 they would have 707 atoms left and from day 330 they would have 1000. So they would have about 200,000 atoms after 330 days of production. That is not exact because the equation is not linear and I don't recall the formula for growth and decay off the top of my head. But hopefully you get the point.

    Nothing slows or speeds up the decay rate. Temperature, pressure, humidity, etc, etc will not affect the rate of decay.
     
  9. sunshaker Registered Member

    Messages:
    84
    Good answer on creating berkelium,

    I was only wondering if pressure had an effect, I was thinking about diamonds, I know we can create diamonds by putting carbon under pressure, So i then thought diamond would first have to decay back into carbon/graphite, before carbon could then decay, Which i now see may not be the case.

    Also electron shell jumping, I believed adding or releasing energy would cause electrons to jump shells, Which i thought would effect decay rates.
    Adding pressure would add energy, changing shell configurations ie carbon/diamond, So shell configurations of elements have no effect on decay, Or no measurable effect?
     
  10. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,889
    Diamonds are carbon. The only difference between diamond and graphite is the crystal structure, they are both pure carbon.

    Radioactive decay is in the nucleus of the atom the electrons have nothing to do with it. If the element was completely ionized (having no electrons) the decay rate would not change.
     

Share This Page