Slashdot Mirror


Chemical Element 110 To Be Named

An anonymous reader writes "According to Nature Magazine, chemists will vote in Ottawa, Canada this week, and are expected to approve the chemical element 110's informal moniker, 'darmstadtium', and give it the chemical symbol Ds. The title honors the Laboratory for Heavy Ion Research (called GSI) in Darmstadt, Germany, where the substance was first made. It seems that 'disputes over claimed sightings of new elements have [previously] led to acrimonious and nationalistic battles over naming', but not in this case."

291 comments

  1. Darmstadtium? Ewwww by mikeophile · · Score: 4, Informative

    Darm, if I'm not mistaken, means 'intestine'. Stadt means city. So this element is Intestine-city-um.

    1. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by Yoho · · Score: 1

      At least they did not name it after the part of Darmstadt where the GSI is actually located, which is called 'Wixhausen'...

    2. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey!! I live in Darmstadt! I like to think of it as "Gut City".

      You're welcome
      Tom

    3. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by niceandsunny · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It was called "Darmundestat" in the 11th century. Historians are not quite certain as to the origin, but it definitely has nothing to do with intestines.
      Darmund seems to have been a first name back then.

    4. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by Bartmoss · · Score: 0

      Above all it sounds REALLY dumb when spoken out loud.

    5. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a stream "Darm" flowing through Darmstadt. The suffix "-mund" means estuary or mouth.

    6. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by yanestra · · Score: 1, Funny
      Darm, if I'm not mistaken, means 'intestine'. Stadt means city. So this element is Intestine-city-um.

      Indeed. It's an old German joke, saying somebody comes from Darmstadt, meaning: he's gay.

      Weil: Verkehr findet im Darm statt.
      Because: Intercourse takes place in the intestines.

      (I guess the translation lacks of the joking elements, but at least the Germans can laugh... maybe...)

    7. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by Sven+Tuerpe · · Score: 4, Informative
      Darm, if I'm not mistaken, means 'intestine'. Stadt means city. So this element is Intestine-city-um.

      Exactly. AFAIK the city is named after the wriggly litte rivulet Darmbach which is not quite visible any more in the city.

      Darmstadt, by the way, is about the geekiest place in old Europe. Seemingly ordinary people may actually understand the print on your T-shirt there. Besides GSI, Darmstadt has a Technical University and a University of Applied Sciences. The European Space Operations Center is located there and the Fraunhofer institutes for Secure Telecooperation, Integrated Publication and Information Systems, Computer Graphics, and Structural Durability. Deutsche Telekom is running a research center there and the headquarters of T-Online are about to move to Darmstadt from the nearby town of Weiterstadt. There is a Linux User Group too. Darmstadt officially carries the title Wissenschaftsstadt (city of science). It is located about 30km south of Frankfurt/Main. The bus ride from Frankfurt airport takes 25 minutes.

      --
      http://erichsieht.wordpress.com/category/english/
    8. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by SubjunctiveSam · · Score: 1, Funny

      Two pretzels were walking down the street, and one was assaulted.

    9. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Darmstadt and Umstadt (a nearby town) swapped the 'D' because they didn't like their original names. They were called Armstadt and Dummstadt before the change.

      (Yes, this is another lame joke.)

    10. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by FrankNFurter · · Score: 3, Funny

      At least they did not name it after the part of Darmstadt where the GSI is actually located, which is called 'Wixhausen'...

      ...which means 'Wankville'...

      --
      "Slashdot - the one place on the internet where guys brag about how small it is." - that IT girl
    11. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by yanestra · · Score: 1
      Indeed, another stupid name for a new element. Been hoping that the naming commities can get to a 'J' and a 'Q' element, which would complete the whole Roman alphabet.

      billsf: Just another stupid name for a human being.

      Sorry, but at least when you come to Americium or Polonium, I think the people would not like to hear you saying that.

      So much work has been done on the discovery of these elements, and it's a shame if every passer-by has a foul mouth on that.

    12. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by los+furtive · · Score: 2, Funny

      What, like Aluminium?

      Boron.

      --

      I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.

    13. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but at least when you come to Americium or Polonium, I think the people would not like to hear you saying that.

      C'mon. Is it really a matter of pride to have your country name related to a chemical element that is unstable, highly radioactive and has no application whatsoever - like Americium od Polonium? Would you want to have your country or city insulted by jokes like "Damn, this place is decaying so quickly! Looks like it has shorter half-life than its chemical element".

    14. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Americium is used in smoke alarms; they work by having an americium source opposite (essentially) a Geiger counter, and if the count-rate falls (due to smoke getting in the airgap between source and detector) then the alarm is triggered.

      I'd call that an important use of it, to be honest.

    15. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 1

      I'd call that an important use of it, to be honest.

      I stand corrected. Actually, in the meantime I have googled that the Poles can also be proud of the practical applications of "their" element.

      Damn. Google first, post later. When will I learn?

    16. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by Lars+T. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the other hand we Germans have no problems with people giggling about Uranus.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    17. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by jafiwam · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ytterby, Sweden has four elements named after it.

      Erbium, Terbium, Ytterbium, Yttrium; all rare earths that were first discovered there.

    18. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darmstadt is one butt ugly city too, at least by German standards...
      It used to be the seat of some Hessian nobility or the other, but then it got heavily industrialized and the the Americans and the British bombed the bejeezus out of it. The result is a wierd mixture of palaces, rust belt and fifties style rapid reconstruction. Lots of Americans there too, there a military base in Griesheim, which is a suburb.

    19. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by WTFmonkey · · Score: 1

      Two condoms were walking past a gaybar, one looked at the other and said, "wanna go in and get shitfaced?"

    20. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by Sphere1952 · · Score: 1


      The annoying thing about Germans is that they insist upon learning English/American idiom. Why can't you be like normal forieners and be completely confused by our inside jokes?

      --
      Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
    21. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by dfeist · · Score: 1

      So I live in a geeky place?
      You got the facts correct, but a "city of science" -- you know, if someone says that of himself it has a reason and mostly it's because otherwise no one would notice that ;)
      And I don't think there are too many people understanding what I print on my T-shirts. (but I can't compare because when I wear them somewhere else it's mostly when I'm together with people who of course understand it)
      No, I don't think Darmstadt is the worst place to live but there are of course more than enough better cities in Europe.

      I once hat a practical trainig at the GSI and it was nice. Hey and they still have two more chemical elements to name.

      --
      Unix makes easy tasks hard and hard tasks possible. Windows makes easy tasks easy and hard tasks $29.95.
    22. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by mcolin · · Score: 1

      I would have liked that. I live in Wixhausen.
      Wixium. Now that would have been a name for 110.

    23. Re:Darmstadtium? Ewwww by Bartmoss · · Score: 1

      Which sounds tons better than "Darmstadtium". Try it. First of all Darmstadt is a German word, which 90% of the world won't pronounce correctly; Second, the added "..ium" makes it sound awkward even in German. Yeah, yeah, the idea is to honor the guys. I think, however, that it's still a stupid idea. Surely, something that fills both could be found.

  2. Natural vs ??? by seanadams.com · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I never studied much chemistry, but I hope someone can answer a couple questions:

    According to the article, the "natural" elemements "run out" at 92.

    1) What does this mean exactly?
    2) Is it not possible for us to discover other natural elements?
    3) Is it inconceivable that our "new" elements could also be produced under similar conditions in nature?
    4) Have all of these new elements only existed in very small quantities for short periods of time, under controlled conditions?

    1. Re:Natural vs ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I beleive it's an open source businessmodel!

      1: Write free software.
      2: ?
      3: Name the chemical element 110.
      4: Profit!

    2. Re:Natural vs ??? by Vanieter · · Score: 1

      1) Basically, it's produced in a lab, in artificial conditions that are impossible to reproduce in nature. Oh yeah, such elements are usually pretty unstable, IIRC.
      2) Maybe. Who knows ? IANAS (I Am Not A Scientist).
      3) See 1)
      4) See 1)

      Whew, not bad since IANAS. Or maybe I'm completely wrong [=

    3. Re:Natural vs ??? by Ieshan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Natural vs. Not-naturally occuring.

      It's not quite correct, but basically, they're saying that these other things don't exist unless we try really hard to make them exist in a laboratory.

      For instance, gold, mercury, hydrogen: these are all examples of elements that exist in nature (as well as Lithium, Helium, etc, down the line).

      Yes, they've existed in very small quantities (sometimes not at all, there have been disputes over this), and under very controlled conditions.

      No, of course it's not inconcievable. But remember, elements are created by making a stable (or not so stable) configuration of protons in a little ball. This leaves one to question what is natural: are nuclear explosions and the weapons of the future a "natural" setting?

    4. Re:Natural vs ??? by Lucky+Tony · · Score: 1, Informative

      Past Element 92, they haven't been discovered in nature

    5. Re:Natural vs ??? by Gherald · · Score: 3, Informative

      1) What does this mean exactly?

      They can only be created in a lab.

      2) Is it not possible for us to discover other natural elements?

      There are none left to discover.

      3) Is it inconceivable that our "new" elements could also be produced under similar conditions in nature?

      Such conditions do not exist in nature.

      4) Have all of these new elements only existed in very small quantities for short periods of time, under controlled conditions?

      Yes

    6. Re:Natural vs ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Most 'unnatural' elements (all?) have been discovered in stars, 'natural' elements, however, are pretty much everwhere, if even in small quantities.

      'Unnatural' just means they're not commonplace, really. And to 'get' them an unnatural process is necessary. (Like bombarding another element with particles / energy.)

    7. Re:Natural vs ??? by Kiffer · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting for Elemement 114. if Xcom is right it will allow us to finaly attack the base on mars and push back the alien threat.

      it's posible that there are some more natural elemements to be found as there is an expected island of stabilty, having said that that could mean that they are so stable that they last .2 seconds which would be very stable as many of the unnatural elemements last the mearest fraction of a second.

    8. Re:Natural vs ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. No elements beyond 92 have been found in nature (see 3 for elaboration).

      2. Sure is, but usually it's by chance.

      3. No, it's very conceivable that "un-natural" elements may occur in nature. Several elements (ex. plutonium) have been reclassified as "natural" after being found elsewhere than in a research lab. Of course, some research is carried out to ensure that it wasn't just dumped there.

      4. Not all, but a fair amount of them cannot exist for very long, which is why they're only rarely found in nature.

    9. Re:Natural vs ??? by armie · · Score: 0, Redundant
      According to the article, the "natural" elemements "run out" at 92.
      1) What does this mean exactly?

      It means that the elements with the number of protons > 92 are not found to exist on Earth naturally.

      2) Is it not possible for us to discover other natural elements?
      All the elements from 1 to 92 have already been discovered. The heavier elements > 92 are all artificially made.

      3) Is it inconceivable that our "new" elements could also be produced under similar conditions in nature?
      The conditions for the production of these elements are not part of "nature". They are, however, present in linear accelerators.

      4) Have all of these new elements only existed in very small quantities for short periods of time, under controlled conditions?
      All the heavier elements have short half-lives which means they only exist for a short amount of time before decaying to different elements. They are also created when stars collapse, etc, but of course they quickly decay into other elements due to their instability.

    10. Re:Natural vs ??? by waynemcdougall · · Score: 5, Informative
      According to the article, the "natural" elemements "run out" at 92

      1) What does this mean exactly?

      It means that the first 92 elements can be found naturally occurring, but that after 92 (the trans-uranic elements) have to be produced in a laboratory or under artifical conditions if you want useful amounts.

      2) Is it not possible for us to discover other natural elements?

      If by discover, you mean create then yes. Since an element is definied by the number of (integer >0) protons, any new elements created must have an atomic number >92.

      3) Is it inconceivable that our "new" elements could also be produced under similar conditions in nature?

      Not inconceivable. It has been verified that minutes amounts of trans-uranic elements have been found in nature. But given that these lements have a very short life time (before they decay into other elements), you'd have to be around immediately after their formation to detect them in nature. Since their creation requires high amounts of energy, super nova, intense gamma radiation near black holes, etc, are the sort of environments where you might find naturally ocurring trans-uranic elements (remembering too that you basically need to smash into heavy elements to get the trans-uranic ones, the very heavy ones need to be present to). Such environments are are rare and not conducive to observation. Given that the elements in the universe are hydrogen, helium and minor traces short-lived trans-uranic are not going to be found in nature in any partical sense.

      4) Have all of these new elements only existed in very small quantities for short periods of time, under controlled conditions?

      Yes. There are some theories that there would be an island of stability around element 120+. Scientists are working to create a stable trans-uranic element, and I for one welcome our trans-uranic overlords and would like to remind them that being primarily made of stable isotopes I can be useful in rounding up other carbon based elemental life forms to slave in their radioactive piles.

      --
      Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
    11. Re:Natural vs ??? by Xrikcus · · Score: 4, Informative

      The elements above 92 that have been "discovered" in that they could be predicted, but had never been shown to be possible to create before. It is feasible that the high numbered elements could be created naturally, for example in a supernova, however the real problem is that atoms of that size are fundamentally unstable, so have very short half-lives and therefore collapse into smaller atoms very quickly.

      It also depends on the isotope of the element, that is changes the ratio of neutrons to protons (the proton count being the atomic number). For example, the half-life of meitnerium (element 109) is most stable as meitnerium-268, ie 109 protons, 159 neutrons, has a half life of 0.07 seconds. So any amount of it produced will not last long. These results are only theoretical, the isotope produced was meitnerium-266, which has a half-life of 3.8 milliseconds.

      So yes, they could occur naturally, but not for long enough for anyone to notice.

      It's early, that may not have made sense...

    12. Re:Natural vs ??? by bersl2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've just taken chemistry for the past 2 years, so I should easily know these; but then again, we didn't concentrate on nuclear chemistry, 'cause "It Wasn't On The AP Exam(TM)." Stupid stoichiometry...

      #4 is sorta correct. Something like plutonium-239 has a half-life of 2.411x10^4 years, but lawrencium-257 has one of 0.65 seconds.

    13. Re:Natural vs ??? by TuataraShoes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      3) Is it inconceivable that our "new" elements could also be produced under similar conditions in nature? If you are brave enough to go to a very extreme natural environment (like the centre of a black hole), you may find that matter exists in a quite different form. The periodic table has a sequence, so we know there are no gaps up to the 92nd element we have found naturally and the 110th someone says they have produced. But there may be places in the universe where conditions are sufficiently different that a different sequence of 'elements' is natural. It may also be possible to consider the substance of the universe on a quite different scale - either very big or very small - which leads us to think about the basic elements in quite a different way. There is a whole lot we just don't know. The periodic table of elements does a pretty good job of describing a lot of the matter we see and experience in the suburbs.

      --
      Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird -- Proverbs 1:17
    14. Re:Natural vs ??? by hughk · · Score: 4, Informative
      It's not quite correct, but basically, they're saying that these other things don't exist unless we try really hard to make them exist in a laboratory.
      All existing naturally ocurring heavy elements are the result of ancient supernovae. It is quite possible that these new elements already exist around other supernovae, which whilst catastropic, are definitely natural. It is just that none was around when the earth coalesced.
      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    15. Re:Natural vs ??? by Shriek · · Score: 1, Informative

      Element 114 is Ununquadium

      Element 114

    16. Re:Natural vs ??? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      Not only are you the most complete reply to the parent post, you also manage to get in a Kent Brockman quote. #3 is covering what everyone else missed.

      Mod Parent Up!

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    17. Re:Natural vs ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite. Technetium (43) doesn't occur in nature. It's also the first man-made element. It occurs in stars, we can tell, but not on Earth. Other than that, all the elements 1-92 are indeed naturally occurring.

    18. Re:Natural vs ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >2) Is it not possible for us to discover other natural elements?
      >
      >There are none left to discover.

      Actually, I remember my chemistry teacher saying that there might be an "island" of stable elements with atomic numbers higher than anything known yet.

    19. Re:Natural vs ??? by TapTapTheChisler · · Score: 1

      That's just a temporary name until a famous enough scientist dies and they have someone to name it after. I'm hoping its Dr. Eler.

    20. Re:Natural vs ??? by Gorny · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All existing naturally ocurring heavy elements are the result of ancient supernovae. It is quite possible that these new elements already exist around other supernovae, which whilst catastropic, are definitely natural. It is just that none was around when the earth coalesced.

      Even if they did, they would be so unstable (with a half time to be measured in nanoseconds) that they would fall apart immediately. That's (as being told me by my school Science teacher) also the distinction between natural and nonnatural elements. The ones that are stable exist for a while (at least a second or so) and are natural and the rest has an unstable nucleus and thus isnt natural (ie can only be made in a lab).

      --
      Alan Perlis once said: "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing"
    21. Re:Natural vs ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's to stop someone from claiming element number 261 for example? Do they have to actually prove it exists first (whether naturally occuring or not)?

    22. Re:Natural vs ??? by SubjunctiveSam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As my chemistry professor explained it, yeah the new ones are all unstable,existing for fractions of a second only. But, apparently there is some hope that there might be some barrier, that after a certain atomic number, there might be more elements that can exist for longer periods of time.

      I don't know what you would use those elements for, but it would be pretty damn cool.

    23. Re:Natural vs ??? by Gherald · · Score: 1

      > there might be an "island" of stable elements with atomic numbers higher than anything known yet

      Well perhaps... and they maybe stable, but that doesn't make them natural.

      Unless we find one in nature, that is.

    24. Re:Natural vs ??? by mikerich · · Score: 4, Informative
      1) What does this mean exactly?

      Elements are distinguished from one another by the number of protons in their nuclei. Hydrogen has 1, helium 2 and so on. The heaviest naturally occuring element found on Earth is number 92 - uranium.

      The limiting factor on elements heavier than 92 is that they are unstable. In fact all of the heavier elements are unstable - they are radioactive, parts of their nuclei keep falling off - they turn into new, lighter elements. So uranium decays step by step, down the periodic table eventually forming lead.

      The reason for nuclear decay is a concept known as binding energy - the energy needed to hold a nucleus together. Very simply, the nucleus consists of postively charged protons - each repelling the other. If this repulsion was not counteracted the nucleus would disintegrate. However, the nucleus also contains neutrons - which act very much like glue - sticking protons together. If you measure the binding energy of all the elements you will notice that it rises rapidly from hydrogen, peaking around iron (element 26) and then gradually diminishing towards uranium.

      By the time you reach uranium, the binding energy is barely able to hold the nucleus together, beyond uranium, the nuclei of the elements become extremely unstable - they decay - rapidly.

      2) Is it not possible for us to discover other natural elements?

      Below 92? No. Each element must have at least one proton (in which case it is called hydrogen), we have found each and every element between 1 and 92. You can't have half a proton, so there are just 92 elements in Nature (see proviso below). Some models of atomic nuclei suggest that there are elements heavier than 92 which are comparatively stable - they would be radioactive and decay, but might have considerable half-lives. The theoretical 'island of stability' lies out between elements 118 and 130 (?) - but as yet remains undiscovered.

      3) Is it inconceivable that our "new" elements could also be produced under similar conditions in nature?

      Yes, supernovae are capable of building up super-heavy elements. However, the short half-lives of the elements mean that they have long since decayed in the rocks around us. The synthetic elements neptunium (93) and plutonium (94) are also generated in minute quantities in naturally occuring uranium.

      4) Have all of these new elements only existed in very small quantities for short periods of time, under controlled conditions?

      Pretty much, although some of the synthetic elements were first discovered in the residue of nuclear weapons tests.

      Hope that helps,
      Mike.

    25. Re:Natural vs ??? by gurisees · · Score: 4, Interesting

      First of all, there are not "unnatural" elements. They are all natural, because they can all be found in the nature, given the proper conditions. I guess you should better talk about stable and unstable elements, and even then you should specify the conditions under which the element is stable or not.

      Stable elements are that way because the energy required to bind together the protons and neutrons is smaller than the energy gain that comes from binding them, so there is an "energy wall" that has to be surpassed in order to break the atom.

      Unstable elements don't have such a barrier, because the energy required to keep them together is too high. This means that if you leave them alone they will decay into a nuclei of another element by losing one or more nucleons (neutron or proton), and will keep decaying until the new atom is stable.

      This doesn't mean that these elements cannot be found in nature, it only means that you have to be very lucky, or know very well where you have to search them, or wait a long long time to see one of these atoms form (and dissapear) without human help.

      Someone has said here that it is impossible to find more "natural" (stable) elements. That seems a very risky thing to say, since most of those affirmations (in the line of "we know it all 'bout this, we won't find anything more here") have proven false in the past. I'd better say that we cannot know for sure, but some think it is possible to find stable configurations at higher atomic numbers (ammount of protons and neutrons).

      I hope this makes some sense...

      --
      ... information wants to be forwarded ...
    26. Re:Natural vs ??? by mu-sly · · Score: 1

      Check your "facts"! it was Elerium-115 (not 114) in X-Com.

      AFAIK, there was no element number given for the Zrbite in "Terror From The Deep".

      (No wonder I can't remember anything important, ever - my head is too full of useless shit!)

    27. Re:Natural vs ??? by void+warranty() · · Score: 1

      Yes. There are some theories that there would be an island of stability around element 120+. Scientists are working to create a stable trans-uranic element, and I for one welcome our trans-uranic overlords and would like to remind them that being primarily made of stable isotopes I can be useful in rounding up other carbon based elemental life forms to slave in their radioactive piles.

      How is "stable" defined in this context? It's been a while but I seem to recall some numbers in the order of milliseconds.

    28. Re:Natural vs ??? by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 1

      Such conditions do not exist in nature

      Only if you don't count stars as nature.

    29. Re:Natural vs ??? by RickL · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know I'm being off-topic here (but this is slashdot).

      Where does:
      1. Do something
      2. Do Something else
      3. ?
      4. Profit!

      Come from?

    30. Re:Natural vs ??? by Marc2k · · Score: 1

      Unless we find one in nature, that is.

      But you just asserted that there can be no more natural elements by saying that all of them have been found..

      --
      --- What
    31. Re:Natural vs ??? by fault0 · · Score: 1

      > I mean if the scientists create a new element that is extremely reactive

      This is unlikely to happen, because many of these elements exist for only 1/1000000000th of a second before they decay into something else. There are a few applicable uses for some of these elements though. Elements 92-94 are used in Nuclear weapons and power, and Element 95 (americium) is used in smoke detectors.

    32. Re:Natural vs ??? by jea6 · · Score: 1

      I don't think you actually received an answer for why 'natural' elements 'stop' at 92.

      I'm not a chemist (or any form of scientist, really) but I believe it refers to how many elements have 'naturally' been found on Earth. Wikipedia sums it up nicely at Transuranic Elements: "All of the elements with higher atomic numbers, however, have had to be produced artificially. They are all radioactive, with a half-life much shorter than the age of the Earth, so any atoms of these elements, if they ever were present at the earth's formation, have long since vanished."

      I found a "historical perspective" on chemistry from Google: http://www.cm.utexas.edu/academic/courses/Fall2002 /CH610A/Krische/handouts/Ch.1_Part_1.pdf.

      --

      sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
    33. Re:Natural vs ??? by fault0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, and already one such relatively stable element exists-- a single atom of element 114 with 114 protons and 175 neutrons was created that lasted for 30 (!) seconds. This might not be much, but is MUCH greater than lasting for one thousanth of a second like many other elements (z > 100) have.

      Theoretically, an atom of element 114 with 114 protons and 183 neutrons is supposed to be perfectly stable (or have a uber-long half life).. 114 and 183 are so called magic numbers where stablity occurs.

    34. Re:Natural vs ??? by WeeLad · · Score: 1

      Southpark. Underpant gnomes.

      --
      Seriously, Don't take anything I say seriously.
    35. Re:Natural vs ??? by Scholasticus · · Score: 1

      IANASE (I Am Not A Scientist Either) but IIRC there is a theory which predicts that there are some stable trans-uranic elements beyond the unstable ones which we've already discovered. These would also be non-naturally-occurring (since they would have to be produced in a lab) but wouldn't decay in a picosecond or whatever. I didn't get this from Star Trek, I swear.

    36. Re:Natural vs ??? by mog007 · · Score: 0

      Technium was at one time an artifical element, until it was detected by the Hubble to be in a nebula... so it could be possible for trans-uranium elements to exist in nature, usually after a supernova. It's just unlikely for us to detect them before they decay. Man-made elements have half-lives less than a second in length.

    37. Re:Natural vs ??? by gid · · Score: 1

      Heh, I just read about that Simpsons reference today, and already I'm seeing it all over the place. Quite odd... I don't ever remember seeing that episode.

    38. Re:Natural vs ??? by RevMike · · Score: 2, Informative
      A lot of people have beat this to death, but I'd like to add my own spin...

      According to the article, the "natural" elemements "run out" at 92.

      1) What does this mean exactly?

      With a few exceptions, all the elements with 92 protons or less have been observed in nature. They are proven to exist without human intervention. The elements with 93 or more protons have only been observed to exist as the result or side effect of some experiment we did. We've proven that they can exist, but we can't prove that they do exist (without our intervention). It is likely that, if one of these trans-uranic elements was later found in nature, it would still not be called "natural" because it was first observed in a laboratory.

      2) Is it not possible for us to discover other natural elements?

      Never say never, but if these elements are created in nature, they tend to be in such tiny amounts that they are effectively undetectable. Furthermore, these elements tend to be created under such extreme conditions and usually exist for such a short time that they are additionally difficult to detect.

      You may have better luck trying to indirectly observe these elements in nature by looking for longer lived elements that result when the transuranic decays. Think of it as infering that wood once existed by looking for wood ash.

      3) Is it inconceivable that our "new" elements could also be produced under similar conditions in nature?

      It is quite conceivable - by the same logic that enough monkeys working at enough typewriters would produce the works of Shakespeare. The universe is big enough for it to happen somewhere at some time, but it is unusual enough that it would likely not be detected.

      4) Have all of these new elements only existed in very small quantities for short periods of time, under controlled conditions?

      Some of them are relatively stable. Plutonium and Americium have appreciable half lives. Others exist for only a fraction of a second.

    39. Re:Natural vs ??? by James+Cole · · Score: 1

      That's absolutely not right. The elements > 94 have not been discovered in stars or anywhere else. They cannot be created during natural processes, even supernovae can't do.

    40. Re:Natural vs ??? by James+Cole · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. Decaying Uranium 238 can produce Tc-isotopes. Tc was found 1961 in a place named Katanga, wherever this is (yes, it is on earth). It is also found in Molybdenum ores.

    41. Re:Natural vs ??? by Gherald · · Score: 1

      Near as we get tell we have discovered all of them. The possibility of this "island" existing is pure guesswork, akin to suggesting there might be an 11th planet.

      So, it *might* exist. I certainly wouldn't bet on it though, and I think we can say with a decent amount of certainty that we will never find such a thing.

    42. Re:Natural vs ??? by James+Cole · · Score: 1

      According to present-day calculations, there's a region of about 300 "stable" nuclei ranging from Z = 107 - 124 and N = 154 - 185. (Z is the number of protons, N the number of protons and neutrons). Actually, the isotope Darmstadtium 294 is believed to be the most stable one with a half life of some ten thousand years up to some billion years.
      My source is Harry H. Binder's excellent encyclopedia of the chemical elements.

    43. Re:Natural vs ??? by Techie2000 · · Score: 1

      Check out the Slashdot Wiki and Slashdot Trolling Phenomena Wiki for the answers to that, and all other questions you may have about things that go on at /.

      --
      "And I'm right. I'm always right, but in this case I'm just a bit more right than I usually am." - Linus Torvalds
    44. Re:Natural vs ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you bother answering when you don't know? Seriously, shut up!

      From South Park, it's:
      1. Stuff (steal underpants, for example)
      2. ???
      3. Profit!

      Anything else is a troll bastardization. Including, I suppose, this post. :oD

    45. Re:Natural vs ??? by Sphere1952 · · Score: 1

      ...

      "2) Is it not possible for us to discover other natural elements?" ...

      Highly unlikely, but there is another possible stable proton/neutron shell somewhere about twice the size of all known elements. (Sorry, I don't remember the exact numbers.)

      Basically, everything above uranium is so unstable that there's no way it would have lasted long enough after being made by natural processes for us to find any of it. Unless, that is, some at the next full nuclear "shell" level are; which is unlikely. (My knowledge of this subject is old, but as far as I know we have no clue on whether they would be.)

      --
      Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
    46. Re:Natural vs ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pendantically, these labratory created transuranic element could exist elsewhere in the Universe, we just haven't discovered them elsewhere, much like non-terrestrial life.

      However, making them in the laboratory proves the physics of the Universe allows them to exist, which is in and of itself cool.

      Personally, I'm waiting for labratory creation of stable transuranics, anti-isotopes more massive than hydrogen and matter composed of charm, strange, truth [sic], and beauty [sic] quarks*. Or better yet, chimeric isotopes, a.k.a. chimera (I don't know if nuclear physicsists have a name for this concept so I'm inventing teminology here. Let me know if this idea has been hypothesized and has official terminology) consisting of atoms composed of up/down quarks and leptons as well as charm, strange, truth [sic] or beauty [sic] quarks.

      Wouldn't it be cool if charmed, strange, truthful [sic], and beautiful [sic] matter, or chimeric isotopes could chemically react with normal up/down quark matter!

      * Yes, I know they are officially called top and bottom quarks, but 1) truth and beauty were alternate terms for those quarks for some time and 2) we have up and down quarks to confuse them with 3) I like the names truth and beauty better than top and bottom.

      Kevin Allen

    47. Re:Natural vs ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's element 114's name? Adamantium would be a cool name for it, especially if the alloys are nigh-indesctructable. ;)

    48. Re:Natural vs ??? by Alkaiser · · Score: 1

      Good post...but...

      WRONG!

      The incorrect part of your post:

      "It means that the first 92 elements can be found naturally occurring..."

      Element 43, Technetium, is not natural. Well...it is possible, but I don't think they're 100% sure.

      --
      Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
    49. Re:Natural vs ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If it's man-made, then how the hell can it be an element?"

      -- Dead Milkmen, if I'm not mistaken

    50. Re:Natural vs ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the article, the "natural" elemements "run out" at 92.

      1) What does this mean exactly?


      Well, found by 19th century (and older) European scientists in various pieces of the Earth, is what "natural element" means.

      "run out" means they didn't find things with more than 92 protons.
      (Ofcourse there is naturally occuring plutonium, but no one likes to talk about it, as it would ruin the term "trans-uranic", and other such institutional terms)

      IIRC, ELEMENT 43, Tc, Technetium, is artificial, and one of the first produced.

      There's the fact that there are stable large amounts of ELEMENT 0 (n, Neutronium) found in Neutron Stars... and that New Scientist article about possibly finding tetraneutrons. But you don't really see acknowledgement of Element 0.


      2) Is it not possible for us to discover other natural elements?

      It is possible, just not likely.


      3) Is it inconceivable that our "new" elements could also be produced under similar conditions in nature?

      They are produced in nature (atleast some of them)


      4) Have all of these new elements only existed in very small quantities for short periods of time, under controlled conditions?

      Almost all of them.
      Plutonium exists is significant quantities...

    51. Re:Natural vs ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They all exist in nature and can be observed if on but passes the event horizon of any black hole. ;-)

  3. Ottawa, CA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In that case name it Blackoutium.

  4. What? by fredistheking · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ununnilium isn't good enough for them? Sir Ununnil must be rolling over in his grave.

    --

  5. uhhh by Bigmell · · Score: 1

    Did anybody else read that as "damn stadium"?

    1. Re:uhhh by Gherald · · Score: 1

      No, but I did read "Simon Icker"

  6. WAIT! It's already been done!! by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 5, Funny

    Element: WOMAN
    Symbol: Wo
    Atomic Weight: 120 +/-

    Physical Properties: Generally round in form. Boils at nothing and may freeze anytime. Melts whenever treated properly. Very bitter if not used well.

    Chemical Properties: Very active. Possesses strong affinity to gold, silver, platinum, and precious stones. Violent when left alone. Able to absorb great amount of exotic food. Turns slightly green when placed beside a better specimen. Ages rapidly.

    Usage: Highly ornamental. An extremely good catalyst for disintegration of wealth. Probably the most powerful income reducing agent known.

    Caution: Highly explosive in inexperienced hands.

  7. Oh my god... by boomgopher · · Score: 2, Funny

    Didn't they realize Darmstadtium is an anagram of "Mama Rudd's Tit"?

    What the hell were they thinking?

    --
    Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
  8. Named Tomorrow? by Joe+Jordan · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's already on the webelements.com page, with some interesting info on the chemical makeup.

    1. Re:Named Tomorrow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and history:

      http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/ te xt/Ds/key.html

      On the 9th of November 1994 at 4:39 pm the first atom of element 110, darmstadtium, was detected at the Gesellschaft fur Schwerionenforschung (GSI) in Darmstadt, Germany. The isotope discovered has an atomic number of 269 (that is, 269 times heavier than hydrogen).

      The new element was produced by fusing a nickel and a lead atom together. This was achieved by accelerating the nickel atoms to a high energy in the heavy ion accelerator UNILAC at GSI. Over a period of many days, many billion billion nickel atoms were fired at a lead target in order to produce and identify a single atom of darmstadtium.

      Darmstadtium was the fourth element discovered at GSI. Between 1981 and 1984 the elements 107 (bohrium), 108 (hassium), 109 (meitnerium) were produced and identified there. Since the discovery of darmstadtium, elements 111 and 112 were both discovered at GSI.

  9. How fast is it's decay time by asciimonster · · Score: 2, Informative
    I saw that Webelements.com already updated their website.

    I wonder how small it's decay time is. I know the elements before it have halflives of several nano- to picoseconds. It'll be gone before you can say "fast". These scientist better not have a cold: Press the button to start experiment. HATSJOO!!!". Oh darned, missed it.

    Ununnillium gone, Darmstadtium in. Mendelev would be proud.

    1. Re:How fast is it's decay time by Fishead · · Score: 1

      Darmstadtium has a half life of only about 270 microseconds according to the web elements page.

      It also says they first created one atom of 269Ds, then later managed to create one atom of 271Ds. Sounds funny getting all jazzed about 2 single atoms that are gone before you realize you made it.

    2. Re:How fast is it's decay time by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 1
      that are gone before you realize you made it

      270 microseconds is 0.270 milliseconds.

      That's plenty of time for scientists who these days dabble with attosecond (10E-18 s) laserpulses.

    3. Re:How fast is it's decay time by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      But still not enough time to actually realize that you created it.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  10. New element 111 discovered!!! by vevva · · Score: 4, Funny

    Scientists have announced within days of the discovery of element 110, the new element 111 provisionally named "SLASHDOTIUM". The discovery opens the door to a new group of elements that should fall in quick succession. The team are working hard on geekium, freakium and phrackium. However elements past his group look more difficult to identify. "We had high hopes we could pin down muckrosoftium as element 115 - but the damn thing just wasn't stable".

    1. Re:New element 111 discovered!!! by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      "We had high hopes we could pin down muckrosoftium as element 115 - but the damn thing just wasn't stable". ... "but clearly the largest element to date". :-)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:New element 111 discovered!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i, for one, welcome our new slashdotium overlord

  11. Don't /. Nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Chemical element 110, which was discovered in 1994, will finally get a name tomorrow.

    A committee will vote at this weekend's General Assembly of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) in Ottawa, Canada. It is expected to approve the element's informal moniker, 'darmstadtium', and give it the chemical symbol Ds. The title honours the Laboratory for Heavy Ion Research (called GSI) in Darmstadt, Germany, where the substance was first made.

    The natural elements run out at number 92, uranium. Several more have been made artificially since 1939, when researchers at the University of California at Berkeley bombarded uranium with a beam of neutrons to create element 93, which they called neptunium.

    Firing subatomic particles at heavy atoms became the preferred method of making new elements. The basic aim is to add more protons to the atomic nuclei - an element is defined by the number of protons its atoms contain. Some new elements were also detected in the fallout from nuclear bomb tests in the 1950s.

    Element-making soon became a race. In the 1960s and 1970s the two main players were a Soviet group at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna and a team spanning the University of California and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The discoverers of a new element generally win the right to name it, although the new name still has to receive IUPAC approval.

    The natural elements run out around
    number 92

    But disputes over claimed sightings of new elements have led to acrimonious and nationalistic battles over naming. These elements decay quickly, and are often made only a few atoms at a time - so it can be hard to gather convincing evidence.

    In 1987 IUPAC was forced to assess priority claims over all the new elements from 104 to 107. Then in 1993 a new controversy erupted when the Berkeley team wanted to name element 106 after nuclear-chemistry pioneer Glenn Seaborg. IUPAC insisted at first that 'seaborgium' broke the rules, because Seaborg was still alive at that time. It relented only after the American Chemical Society threatened rebellion.

    No one disputes GSI's claim to element 110. There was, however, some relief when the German results, produced by fusing lead and nickel nuclei, were confirmed last June at Berkeley using the same process1. Element-hunters have been more cautious since a Berkeley team was forced to retract unreproducible data published in support of a reported 1999 creation of element 118.

    1. Re:Don't /. Nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The natural elements run out at number 92, uranium" - WRONG! Plutonium and Americium both have been found in nature. Nature (the rag) is obsolete.

    2. Re:Don't /. Nature by Cragen · · Score: 1

      And there is absolutely NO PROOF to the story that the Amercian Chemical Society threatened to shoot poor Glenn Seaburg, to fix the rule "problem", if they didn't get their way. Pretty sure, anyway.

  12. The Shadow knows... by Channard · · Score: 1

    What's wrong with 'bronzium', eh?

  13. Re:WAIT! It's already been done!! by Gherald · · Score: 1, Funny

    You forgot:

    Frequently located in small clusters inside shopping malls or near restrooms, but can pretty much be found everywhere except /.

  14. Element 101? by patch-rustem · · Score: 5, Funny
    Okay,I know the natural elements and now we have this new one, so its:

    001 Earth

    010 Wind

    011 Fire

    100 Water

    101 ?

    110 Darmstadtium

    Please can anyone fill in the gap. What's the element 101?

    --
    Karma: Bad due to google bombing - Robert Watkins woz 'ere.
    1. Re:Element 101? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      The 5th Element, course!

      Don't you watch movies?

    2. Re:Element 101? by Shriek · · Score: 0
      Please can anyone fill in the gap. What's the element 101?


      It's Element 0x5

    3. Re:Element 101? by I+don't+want+to+spen · · Score: 3, Funny

      Surely its Dalmatianum.

      --
      Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
    4. Re:Element 101? by muirhead · · Score: 0

      you've numbered it all wrong.
      000 Earth
      001 Wind
      011 Fire
      010 Water
      110 Darmstadtium
      it's called the druid unit distance enumeration.
      DUDE

    5. Re:Element 101? by Ankle · · Score: 0

      I believe element 101 is Idiocy, it's found in nature and in large quantities, it is also very toxic and is knowen to cause many people to turn into 'trolls'.

    6. Re:Element 101? by vevva · · Score: 1

      It's your worst nightmare citizen. nineteeneightyfourium

    7. Re:Element 101? by TuataraShoes · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ether was added to the list after Earth, Wind, Water and Fire. No joke - this is old Greek stuff. Someone said ether had circular properties, explaining the moon and cycles in nature...

      --
      Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird -- Proverbs 1:17
    8. Re:Element 101? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Bright Orange hair dye, of course!

    9. Re:Element 101? by nacturation · · Score: 1, Funny

      Element 101: ??? is none other than: PROFIT!

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    10. Re:Element 101? by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1, Funny

      Why "heart", of course.

    11. Re:Element 101? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heart! Go CPT PLANET

    12. Re:Element 101? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Captain Planet; he's our hero. Gonna' take polution down to zero. Unf unf, yeah.

    13. Re:Element 101? by ajs318 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Actually, I would have thought it would be more like this. Note: "Earth", "Water", "Air" and "Fire" reprsent the four states of matter: solid, liquid, gas and energy.
      • 001 - air - gases - there is only one atmosphere.
      • 010 - water - liquids - water now known to contain two elements in the ratio 2:1.
      • 011 - fire - energy - fire needs fuel, heat and oxygen.
      • 100 - earth - solids - earth was once thought to have four corners.
      Actually this would be neater if Earth was 000, then we can just use two digits - AJS.

      Air and Fire are associated with masculine, spiritual and software. They have odd numbers which are also associated with these properties. Earth and Water are associated with feminine, material and hardware. They have even numbers which are also associated with these properties. I'm not going to comment on the obvious gender symbolism of the one and the zero at LSB in odd numbers .....

      Note to cynical moderators: Please don't mod me down -1, Beardy-Weirdy. I thought this stuff up for the express purpose of assisting New Agers to rectify their money/sense discrepancies!
      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    14. Re:Element 101? by Ashtead · · Score: 4, Funny
      nah ... based on the primitive element we would get:

      0000 The Void
      0001 Earth
      0010 Wind
      0011 Sandblasting
      0100 Fire
      0101 Bricks
      0110 Dragon-breath
      0111 A durable disco group
      1000 Water
      1001 Mud
      1010 Carbonated soft drinks
      1011 Bad weather
      1100 Tequila
      1101 Whisky on the rocks
      1110 Champagne
      1111 Life, the universe and everything less 27

      --
      SIGBUS @ NO-07.308
    15. Re:Element 101? by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      You must be thinking of Token Ring, with those circular properties ...

    16. Re:Element 101? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone obviously hasn't seen the movie .....

    17. Re:Element 101? by gasgesgos · · Score: 1
      I know it's wrong for me to say so, but it MUST be done.


      101 PROFIT!!!

      I'm terribly, terribly sorry about this...

    18. Re:Element 101? by patch-rustem · · Score: 1

      That's very wrong of you to say.
      This MUST have been done already.

      --
      Karma: Bad due to google bombing - Robert Watkins woz 'ere.
    19. Re:Element 101? by waynemcdougall · · Score: 1
      • ooo Orgasmium
      • 001 Earth
      • 010 Wind
      • 011 Fire
      • 100 Water
      • 101 Dalmation
      • 110 Darmstadtium
      • 111 PoliceFireAmbulancium

      That's your complete set. Thank you. I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your physisicts.

      --
      Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
    20. Re:Element 101? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the order followed by many traditions of ritual magick.

      fire
      water
      air
      earth

      ether (spirit, or whatever) is regarded seperately from the other elements. It's 'above' them, but "as above, so below".

    21. Re:Element 101? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      • 101 Lee-loo! The fifth element!

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    22. Re:Element 101? by Guano_Jim · · Score: 1

      101 ?

      That's easy.

      Dalmatianium.

    23. Re:Element 101? by TuataraShoes · · Score: 1

      Aristotle and his ether

      --
      Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird -- Proverbs 1:17
    24. Re:Element 101? by the_one_smiley · · Score: 1

      Heart!

      "When your powers combine..."

      --
      "Never put off for tomorrow what can be avoided altogether"
    25. Re:Element 101? by notwhole · · Score: 1

      001 Earth
      010 Wind
      011 Fire
      100 Water
      101 Dalmations
      110 Darmstadtium

    26. Re:Element 101? by AaronStJ · · Score: 1

      001 Earth
      010 Wind
      011 Fire
      100 Water

      Heart!

      By your powers combined... I am Captain Planet!
      --
      Stupid like a fox!
    27. Re:Element 101? by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Quint-essence, of course.

    28. Re:Element 101? by gasgesgos · · Score: 1

      :(

      sorry about that, I must've missed it... ummm.. it was really late... yeah... that's it...

    29. Re:Element 101? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's obvious (wait for it) ...

      101 Dalmations

    30. Re:Element 101? by litui · · Score: 1

      I believe that would be the quintessence though your ordering on the first 4 is off =)

      --
      I send you this message in order to have your advice.
    31. Re:Element 101? by litui · · Score: 1

      Finally, someone around here who knows how the universe works ;)

      --
      I send you this message in order to have your advice.
    32. Re:Element 101? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      # 000 Energy (Chi)
      # 001 Metal
      # 010 Wood
      # 011 Water
      # 100 Fire
      # 101 Earth
      # 110 Darmstadtium
      # 111 Void

      http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_five_eleme nt s

  15. One more thing - technetium by Raul654 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just one more answer I'd like to add to your questions (because so many have been submitted). The natural elements stop occuring after atomic number 92, yes. But it's also worth point out that for all intents and purposes, technetium (element #43) does not exist in nature either.

    After decades of searching, extremely small quantites were obtained from pitchblend, but that's negligible.

    Long story short (long answer being availabe from google cache here) is that pairing energy makes the atom extremely unstable and causes it to break -a(C)Y quickly.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
    1. Re:One more thing - technetium by protoshoggoth · · Score: 1

      Promethium also falls into this category http://pearl1.lanl.gov/periodic/elements/61.html

  16. Re:WAIT! It's already been done!! by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 1
    Atomic Weight: 120 +/-

    What the f... ah, yes. Pounds - not kilograms?

  17. school's children to study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    103th item is jupiterium-103
    104th item is jupiterium-104
    105th item is jupiterium-105
    106th item is jupiterium-106
    107th item is jupiterium-107
    108th item is jupiterium-108
    109th item is jupiterium-109
    110th item is jupiterium-110
    111th item is jupiterium-111
    112th item is jupiterium-112
    ..

    open4free

  18. Proposals for element 111 and 112 by neodymium · · Score: 2, Funny

    As the elements 111 and 112 are also discovered by GSI, and the whole hierarchy Europium (element 63), Germanium (32), Hassium (108) and now Darmstadtium (110) is taken, I am really curious how they will name these two.

    Maybe, they'll take Wixhausenium (GSI is located in a district of Darmstadt called Wixhausen), but that wouldn't be too good as the german word Wichsen means "jerk off...", and the words Wix... and Wichs... are spoken exactly the same. :-)

    1. Re:Proposals for element 111 and 112 by ajs318 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Well, we already have a Nobelium and a Mendelevium. So how about Nobelievium? We could give it the chemical symbol Bs.

      I'm expecting a large quantity of Bs to be discovered, once it has been identified!

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    2. Re:Proposals for element 111 and 112 by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1


      Budweiserium and devnullium.

      I always thought 'strontium' somehow was a bit close to 'stronzo'...

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
    3. Re:Proposals for element 111 and 112 by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      They also discovered Elements 107 - 109, named Bohrium (after Nils Bohr), Hassium (after Hassium, the latin name of Hessen, the Bundesland Darmstadt is in - as you mentioned), and Meitnerium (after Lise Meitner).

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  19. Polizeiruf 110 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There have been more or less serious attempts to name the element Policium, as 110 is the emergency call for police in Germany. I would have preferred that, for the sake of ease of pronounciation.

  20. Or as we say in English... by serutan · · Score: 1, Funny

    Damnstraightium

  21. Re:Natural vs ??? (x1488) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do not think that word means what you think it means.

  22. Re:WAIT! It's already been done!! by Alien+Being · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Pounds - not kilograms?"

    Or, married vs looking.

  23. Better name for heavy element... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    scodelirium. Uncovered in germany, not to be found naturally, makes front page of slashdot. forgot, short lived...

  24. Dutch joke by stardeep · · Score: 5, Funny

    Indeed. It's an old joke in Dutch to say "I'm expecting a fax from Darmstadt" to excuse yourself to go for a shit...

    --
    Sentimentality is merely the Bank Holiday of cynicism.
    - Oscar Wilde
    1. Re:Dutch joke by SilverSun · · Score: 1

      Damn.. and I thought it was a german joke... since I first heard it Darmstad...

      --

      KdenLive/PIAVE - non-linear video editing

    2. Re:Dutch joke by EvilAlien · · Score: 2, Funny
      The Dutch probably stole it... isn't that vierd?

      I can't seem to lose the association between "Dutch" and "Goldmember".

      --
      perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
    3. Re:Dutch joke by High+Hat · · Score: 1

      There's also that dumb joke that goes "Bei Schwulen findet der Verkehr im Darmstadt."
      But because it's a joke about the way gay men have sex, i won't translate it...

    4. Re:Dutch joke by lpret · · Score: 1

      I guess you're darmed if you do, darmed if you don't...
      /American Saying -- sorta

      --
      This is my digital signature. 10011011001
  25. Re:WAIT! It's already been done!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kilograms when in the USA, Pounds in other places.

  26. Great Post! by Penguin+Follower · · Score: 1

    Kudos on the awesome response! (Very informative to myself and others too I'm sure.)

    Unfortunately, (even though I have taken a couple chemistry classes and a physics class), I must have missed the part where the professor explained WHY we have unstable elements. We have so many stable elements that I've always wondered why everything on the table >92 is unstable?

    Anyway, I figure I must have slept through the important lecture or something. I passed the class(es) and that's all I cared at the time

    1. Re:Great Post! by B3ryllium · · Score: 3, Funny

      Try taking 92 shots of vodka and being stable after that.

    2. Re:Great Post! by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Informative
      I must have missed the part where the professor explained WHY we have unstable elements. We have so many stable elements that I've always wondered why everything on the table >92 is unstable?

      I remember a little more: nuclei are made of protons (positively charged) and neutrons (no charge), usually in roughly equal numbers (except Hydrogen, which is usually just a proton). The protons repel each other. The nucleus is held together by a very powerful, but very short range nuclear force between both protons and neutrons. As the nucleus gets bigger, the electric repulsion starts to overcome the nuclear force, and the nucleus becomes more and more likely to decay. But I don't remember why you can't just have a pile of neutrons...

      Actually #92, Uranium, is unstable, but U238 has a half-life of 4.4 billion years, which is why it's not that hard to find (about half of it has decayed since the creation of the earth). I think all elements above 83 (Bismuth) are unstable. The short-lived ones are found in nature as the result of decay of Uranium or the other longer-lived ones. See this table of isotopes.

    3. Re:Great Post! by mikerich · · Score: 4, Informative
      We have so many stable elements that I've always wondered why everything on the table >92 is unstable?

      Actually everything past bismuth 209 is unstable. 92 is merely the last element to have any isotopes that are stable on a geological timescale (U238 half-life around 4.5 * 10^9 years).

      As for why, simply put their nuclei are very loosely held together. Neutrons hold nuclei together with a force known as binding energy (think of it as atomic glue).

      For very light elements, (up to around calcium (element 20) stability is achieved by more or less associating one neutron with every proton. However, for heavier elements, an excess of neutrons is needed to hold the nucleus together - the excess growing as elements get heavier.

      Simply put (and I hope any physicists will forgive me for this - they have equations and everything!) The electrostatic repulsion between the protons in the nucleus operates over a larger distance than the stronger, binding force of the neutrons. As the nucleus grows, the protons in the nucleus experience a weakening binding force. Beyond a certain point (Bismuth 209) this binding force is insufficient to hold the nucleus together forever - the nucleus will decay.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    4. Re:Great Post! by JCCyC · · Score: 1

      Try taking 92 shots of vodka and being stable after that.

      You'll be stable all right... dead is stable ain't it?

    5. Re:Great Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually everything past bismuth 209 is unstable

      Change that to "Everything past (and including) bismuth 209 is unstable":

      Previous Article

    6. Re:Great Post! by NichG · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can't just have a big pile of neutrons because neutrons convert to protons and electrons with a halflife of about 10 minutes if not bound up with sufficient protons. So if you started with 200 neutrons, after awhile you'd end up with some mix of protons and neutrons forming elements.

      On the other hand, in appropriate conditions (very large pressures) you can suppress that conversion and you get a very big pile of neutrons - a neutron star. Unfortunately, I don't think we have the ability to generate sufficient pressures for this in a lab :)

      NichG

    7. Re:Great Post! by mikerich · · Score: 1
      Bi209 is stable.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    8. Re:Great Post! by Novus · · Score: 1

      You'll be stable all right... dead is stable ain't it?

      Considering the fact that dead people decay into whatever dead people decay into a lot faster that live people decay into dead people, I'd say that the live person is the more stable form of the particle.

    9. Re:Great Post! by jlowery · · Score: 1

      A neutron star is a ball of neutrons. A large pile of neutrons may be harder to produce, since the material is so dense it would tend to collapse.

      --
      If you post it, they will read.
    10. Re:Great Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I remember a little more: nuclei are made of protons (positively charged) and neutrons (no charge), usually in roughly equal numbers (except Hydrogen, which is usually just a proton).

      Actually, once you get past iron or so, the ratio of neutrons to protons deviates from 1. Take uranium, for instance. It has 92 protons (atomic number), but the atomic weight is 235 or 238. Therefore, there are 140 neutrons, making the n:p ratio closer to 1.5.

  27. Pretty periodic table site by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Wooden Periodic Table

    Perhaps some of you knew this one already, but it's one of the most useful ones I've found so far and I really like those huge and high quality pictures they have for most elements that you can take meaningful pictures of. :-)

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:Pretty periodic table site by FroMan · · Score: 1

      In highschool chem myself and a couple others baked a Christmas cookie periodic table of elements. Wish I had pictures of that.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
  28. And there I was... by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...thinking that it was already called Ununnilium.

    1. Re:And there I was... by Lectrik · · Score: 1
      ...thinking that it was already called Ununnilium.


      Umm, forgive my horrible latin/greek since i don't know either but isn't calling it ununnilium just like calling it one-one-zero-ium in english (except it doesn't sound like Leonardo of Quirm named it)
      --
      --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
    2. Re:And there I was... by Novus · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...thinking that it was already called Ununnilium.

      ... which is pseudo-Latin for "one-one-zero-ium". It's just a temporary name consisting of the element's number and the ending "ium" to make it sound scientific.

    3. Re:And there I was... by ntb · · Score: 1

      another link: Ununnilium

    4. Re:And there I was... by Novus · · Score: 2, Informative

      This page about ununnilium also explains how the temporary (or IUPAC systematic) name is generated from the number.

    5. Re:And there I was... by DarkMan · · Score: 1

      It's not a tempory name. That's it's offical IUPAC name. The other, more informal names, are the offical-yet-unoffical names.

      The methodical naming scheme was broguht in to remove the hissy fits and cat fights that were going on over who made the stuff first (traditionally, the first discoverer got to name the thing). So, IUPAC decided to tell them all to sod off, and went with the Un...ium naming scheme.

      It also simplyfies the memoriseing all the name, although that's a minor point.

      You'll find that, outside people who actually deal with the stuff, Ununnilium is what it's called.

      As an aside, the -ium suffix jsut means it's an element. the suffix has an interesting history, originally meaning element, then there was a monve to restrict it to only metals, but a number of misclassifiactions diluted the usefulness of that. Still, most of the time, if it ends in -ium, it's a metal.

    6. Re:And there I was... by Novus · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not a tempory name. That's it's offical IUPAC name.

      No and yes. According to the article:

      A committee will vote at this weekend's General Assembly of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) in Ottawa, Canada. It is expected to approve the element's informal moniker, 'darmstadtium', and give it the chemical symbol Ds.

      According to IUPAC's naming rules for elements 101 and up:

      The systematic names and symbols for elements of atomic numbers greater than 103 are the only approved names and symbols for those elements until the approval of trivial names by IUPAC.

      In other words, the systematic name is official until a trivial name is approved. This means that the systematic name, although official, is temporary. In the case of ununnilium, it may shortly be officially renamed to "darmstadtium", which would imply that the name "ununnilium" is temporary.

      I hope I don't get moderated "-1, vicious pedantry" for this. B-)
    7. Re:And there I was... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      You mean like Ferrum, Plumbum, Zincum etc. as opposed to Helium, Oxygenium, Sulfurium?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    8. Re:And there I was... by Bridog · · Score: 1

      What exactly is this insatiable need to name things? We attempt to be a global community --- I personally think it would be rather easy for everyone to remember a nice numbered element like Ununnillium --- and instead we go choose some arbitrary, hard-to-remember name.

      --
      Most likely the #1 Unfunny Meta/Moderator on /.!
  29. ObTomLehrerFlash: "The Elements" by jerryasher · · Score: 1
  30. And hence... by Salsaman · · Score: 4, Funny
    ...they should really name this element "damnhardtomakeium".

    1. Re:And hence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...they should really name this element "damnhardtomakeium".

      Would "unobtainium" do?

      -cmh

  31. Re:WAIT! It's already been done!! by Shriek · · Score: 1, Funny
    Atomic Weight: 120 +/-
    What the f... ah, yes. Pounds - not kilograms?


    Man, I sure hope you're not working at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
  32. Re:WAIT! It's already been done!! by Jackdaw+Rookery · · Score: 1

    You're forgetting the little know element 'furrodium'. An element so weird that all other elements back the fark away from it whenever it spooges into existence creating what scientists are terming a 'social vacuum'.

    The links to this been the 'dark matter' of the universe are as yet unknown as no-ones knows if furrodium can survive in space. NASA was quoted as saying 'Hey, we could fire the freaks up there and find out.'

    When prompted for the length of the mission the spokesmen looked incredulous, 'Bring them back? Are you insane?'

  33. Oh no... by maxmg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Having studied in Darmstadt, let me tell you it's not a place you'll wnat to name an element after.
    Unless, that is, it is a really geeky element that drinks lots of beer and never meets any women.
    You see, Darmstadt's main claim to fame is its technical university which sadly results in a geek/women ratio of about 250...

    --
    I asked for a refund - and got my monkey back.
    1. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think "darmstadtium" is much better that e.g. "badenbadenium", "wiesbadenium" or even "randersackerium".

  34. Off topic but... by CGP314 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know this is offtopic but, this is the most beautiful periodic table.

    1. Re:Off topic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crappy shit only viewable with Microsoft Suck-ass-Internet-Explorer?
      My Opera didn't appreciate it...

    2. Re:Off topic but... by fuzzybunny · · Score: 0


      Ok, that one's pretty, but this one is funny :)

      Ok so it's old as the hills...

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
    3. Re:Off topic but... by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      Al Kaline, nice....

    4. Re:Off topic but... by James+Cole · · Score: 1

      Mine did (v 7.11).

  35. used to live by darmstadt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is actuallly pretty cool. I used to live like 15 km from Darmstadt (1999-2002). Also they have like 3 different breweries there! Yeah! I know Darmstadt pretty well, but never thought I would see it on /. For the best coffee in town, goto the hauptbahnhopf downtown, and the good bars and clubs aren't too far away from there.

  36. Re:Off topic but... VISIT THE SITE by boogy+nightmare · · Score: 1

    It may be offtopic and it only goes up to number 103 but this really is the most fantastic periodic table i have ever scene...

    Any one out there teachers ? this would be a nice little interactive site for the students to look at..

    MOD THIS UP

    S

    --
    Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
  37. Re:Get me a pound of that! by danormsby · · Score: 1
    A pound of it won't last too long. Definately wouldn't last through shipping.

    Suggest you make your own fresh batch. Receipe is here.

    --
    Omnis amans amens
  38. So Chemistry naming is a Science of spin too? by ratfynk · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Chemically, darmstadtium is in the same Group as nickel, palladium, and platinum (Group 10). Unlike these lighter atoms, darmstadtium decays after a small fraction of a thousandth of a second into lighter elements by emitting a-particles which are the nuclei of helium atoms." So that is where microsoft got the idea! Here is a brief description of the real palladium. Since it is used in industry for membrane gas extraction and isolation tech, then I guess having software that can control the user is the a valid concept. I see why they are using the code name Longhorn now someone in the spin department realised that palladium is an element that is actually used to control things!
    Hopefully Longhorn or MS "Palladium" will turn out
    to be more like 'darmstadtium' which is really vapour ware and only lasts a few thousandths of a before self distructing!
    Here is the real scoop on Palladium
    "Standard state: solid at 298 K
    Colour: silvery white metallic
    Classification: Metallic
    Availability: palladium is available in many forms including wire, foil, "evaporation slugs", granule, powder, rod, shot, sheet, and sponge. Small and large samples of palladium foil, sheet, and wire can be purchased from Advent Research Materialsvia their web catalogue.
    Ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, iridium, and platinum together make up a group of elements referred to as the platinum group metals (PGM). Compound of the platinum group metals and their Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are available online through the Alfa Aesar catalogue.
    Palladium is a steel-white metal, does not tarnish in air, and is the least dense and lowest melting of the platinum group metals. When annealed, it is soft and ductile. Cold working increases its strength and hardness. It is used in some watch springs.

    At room temperatures the metal has the unusual property of absorbing up to 900 times its own volume of hydrogen. Hydrogen readily diffuses through heated palladium and this provides a means of purifying the gas.

    Isolation
    Here is a brief summary of the isolation of palladium.
    It would not normally be necessary to make a sample of palladium in the laboratory as the metal is available commercially. The industrial extraction of palladium is complex as the metal occurs in ores mixed with other metals such as platinum. Sometimes extraction of the precious metals such as platinum and palladium is the main focus of a partiular industrial operation while in other cases it is a byproduct. The extraction is complex and only worthwhile since palladium is the basis of important catalysts in industry.

    Preliminary treatment of the ore or base metal byproduct with aqua regia (a mixture of hydrochloric acid, HCl, and nitric acid, HNO3) gives a solution containing complexes of gold and platinum as well as H2PdCl4. The gold is removed from this solution as a precipitate by treatment with iron chloride (FeCl2). The platinum is precipitated out as (NH4)2PtCl6 on treatment with NH4Cl, leaving H2PdCl4 in solution. The palladium is precipitated out by treatment with ammonium hydroxide, NH4OH, and HCl as the complex PdCl2(NH3)2. This yields palladium metal by burning."

    --
    OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
  39. Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude stars are in nature.

  40. The joke's on you ..... by MZdoctor · · Score: 0

    You are confusing dutch and deutsch (german) which, although understandable in this case because the only difference is the t at the end which you omit, still makes you look slightly stupid! However I note with some satisfaction that this type of mistake is very rare nowadays.

    1. Re:The joke's on you ..... by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
      He's obviously just a kartoffelkopf ;-).

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
    2. Re:The joke's on you ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, but it *IS* also a Dutch joke.

      As in, a joke told in the Netherlands,
      the low countries, Holland, home of mills, wooden shoes, marihuana, tulips and legalised prostitution!

      Daar bij die molen, die mooie molen! WIE NEERLANDS BLOED DOOR D'ADEREN STROOMT...!

  41. Anybody play X-COM? by Fresnik · · Score: 0

    Can't wait till they discover element 115.

  42. It was actually discovered first in ... by ratfynk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Russia where the element names you.

    --
    OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
  43. Re:Totally offtopic.... by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 0

    Why on earth would you start talking to your boss about something like that in the first place?

  44. Re:Urgent request to OSS community! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ATM machines ..... what you type your PIN number into ..... they might be lit by CFL lamps and they almost certainly contain PCB boards!

  45. Re:WAIT! It's already been done!! by JosiKlaki · · Score: 1

    >Probably the most powerful income reducing agent known.

    I thought that was element 51: Anti-Money?

    (drum roll)


    --


    --
    Is that all there is to relationships -sex and robotics?
  46. Oh those funny Germans! by stardeep · · Score: 0, Troll

    > but at least the Germans can laugh...

    Sure! If they're homophobic bastards who know far less about gay sex than they think, that is.

    --
    Sentimentality is merely the Bank Holiday of cynicism.
    - Oscar Wilde
  47. Re:WAIT! It's already been done!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, pounds before marriage, kilograms after.
    me

  48. Re:Dutch joke from local perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as a local citizen, i find much relief in this joke :-)
    people in darmstadt rejoice in the neighboring wixhausen, which translates into jerk-off-townee...

    anyway, go darmstadt, go !

    researchdevil

  49. Name By Place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't we lucky it wasn't discovered in some Chinese province. Xianhungium sure does role of the tongue.

  50. Leeloo by CGP314 · · Score: 1

    I hope it's as hot looking as that chick who was the fifth element.

  51. "Stable" Trans-uranic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just to make sure we all know what we are talking about: When scientists say they hope to find some
    stable trans-uranic due to some theory, they mean
    that those atoms will last about few seconds. (That is, they are so stable that one might even look at them and not only on the decays of their
    decays.)

  52. Ds Nutz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now you can say 'Ds nuts' to the professor and really be talking science.

  53. We need them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "'disputes over claimed sightings of new elements have [previously] led to acrimonious and nationalistic battles over naming', but not in this case."

    We need this people to run the election in California and those in Florida for the next 10 years!

  54. names by Quixadhal · · Score: 1

    Element 110: Marklarium
    Element 111: Marklarium ...

  55. Re:Off topic but... VISIT THE SITE by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1

    Goes upto 109. After the Actinides, the elements are back in the d-block. :-)

  56. Boy am I behind the times... by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

    110 already? What did they end up naming 107, 108 & 109? I gave up after UNQuotable, UNPrintable and UNHelpfull...

    --
    kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    1. Re:Boy am I behind the times... by slavemowgli · · Score: 3, Informative

      107: Bohrium 108: Hassium 109: Meitnerium Hope this helps. :)

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  57. Caltransium discovered--heaviest known element by FattMattP · · Score: 4, Funny
    BERKELEY, CA (AP): The heaviest element known to science was recently discovered by physicists at U.C. Berkeley. The element, tentatively called Caltransium, has no protons or electrons, and thus has an atomic weight of zero (0). However, it does have 1 neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 75 vice neutrons and 111 assistant vice neutrons. This gives it an atomic mass of 212. These 212 particles are held together in a nucleus by a force that involves the continuous exchange of neutron-like particles called morons.

    Since it has no electrons, Caltransium is inert; however, it can be detected chemically, as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. According to the Berkeley discoverers, a minute amount of Caltransium caused one reaction to take over four days to complete, when it would normally have occurred in less than one second.

    Caltransium has a normal half-life of approximately three years at which time it does not actually decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which assistant neutrons, vice neutrons, and assistant vice-neutrons exchange places. Some tests have shown that the atomic number actually increases after each reorganization, although it is not yet clear where the extra morons may originate. Research at other laboratories indicate that Caltransium is known to be highly toxic at any level of concentration and can easily destroy any productive reactions where it is allowed to accumulate. Attempts are being made to determine how Caltransium can be controlled to prevent irreversible damage, but results to date are not promising. Due to lack of funding, U.C. Berkeley has no plans for further evaluation.

    Shamelessly reposted from a joke someone sent me years ago. For people that don't live in California, CalTrans is the California transportation authority.

    --
    Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
    1. Re:Caltransium discovered--heaviest known element by momerath2003 · · Score: 1

      The element, tentatively called Caltransium, has no protons or electrons, and thus has an atomic weight of zero (0). However, it does have 1 neutron [...] This gives it an atomic mass of 212.

      Umm... shouldn't it have an atomic number of zero? Atomic weight is the same as atomic mass.

      --
      I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
    2. Re:Caltransium discovered--heaviest known element by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny. Laugh.

    3. Re:Caltransium discovered--heaviest known element by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A "scientific" joke is more funny when they get the science right.

  58. Naming this stuff... by Jedi+Holocron · · Score: 1

    Once they get power back, rumor is the new name will be blackoutium.

  59. Voting by sshirley · · Score: 1

    Not without electricty they won't be voting!!

  60. 110 prefers to be called by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Element Formerly Known As Ununnilium.

    1. Re:110 prefers to be called by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would that be EFKAU for short? Or would they just add an unpronounceable symbol to the chart?

    2. Re:110 prefers to be called by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm thinkin' one of those old alchemist's symbols would be appropriate.

  61. Cowboynealadium by xv4n · · Score: 2, Funny

    What surprises me the most is that nobody has proposed the name to be Cowboynealadium yet.

    1. Re:Cowboynealadium by sharkey · · Score: 1

      That high an atomic weight is off our periodic horizon.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  62. Re:WAIT! It's already been done!! by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
    Homer: Well, son, a woman is a lot like a... um... [looks around] refridgerator! They're about 6 feet tall, 200 pounds, holds a lot of beer... no, wait...

    -T

  63. Just taste a gramm (or so) of it... by Stupid+Dog · · Score: 1

    ...and then you'll know how deadly and horrible Darmstadt really is.

    1. Re:Just taste a gramm (or so) of it... by CowboyMeal · · Score: 1

      Just be sure to eat it quick...

      --
      Your credit card information wants to be free.
  64. Circular properties of ether by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone said ether had circular properties,

    Well, that makes sense: ether makes the head spin.
    I guess a circle is a close approximation.

  65. A humble suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I appeal to all teams of scientsist to consider my suggestion, that the next element be named Ovaltinium. Fun to say, no nationalism involved. Sure, there is the pesky corporate issue, but nothing's perfect.

    Ovaltinium, Lord of the Trans-uranic Master Race. Couldn't ask for a nicer enslaver.

  66. Deuterium by modular_forms_boy · · Score: 1

    The use of "D" will be slightly confusing, as D has commonly stood for deuterium, aka heavy hydrogen - a nucleus of one proton and one neutron circled by one electron. Heavy-heavy hydrogen (tritium - one proton and two neutrons) is what is most useful for fusion research.

    1. Re:Deuterium by swordgeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not D. It's Ds.

      Nobody gets Nitrogen (N) mixed up with Niobium (Nb) or Nickel (Ni), so I don't see this as being a problem.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  67. New Elementium by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    I've been seaching the periodic table for quite a while, and have yet to see Adamantium...

    No, I'm not a "goody two-shoes"!

    1. Re:New Elementium by swordgeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's partly because adamantane is already a chemical compound. They tend NOT to like to cross those lines back and forth.

      Besides, why should it be an element--because it came from a comic?

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  68. Neutron stars by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    Is a neutron stars one big atomic nucleus?

    Then what is the atomic weight and atomic number of a neutron star? Surely the atomic number would be fairly high even if most of the protons and electrons have neutralized each other.

    These high atomic number elements keep self destructing, but how much longer would they live if they are built with more neutrons - not quite as big as a neutron star, but just more?

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    1. Re:Neutron stars by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      An neutron star is a pile of neutrons. Between them (hard to say because normaly one would assume there is no space between them), there are still a few % electrons and protons left.
      The reason why an neutron star can exist, but not a 10 neutron atom core is that neutrons would decay intro protons, but the huge pressure of the neutron star surpresses that.

      Btw:
      Funny trivia: While the core of a neutron star may or may not be a neutron crystal, the major part of it consist of liquit neutronium. Because of the nature of the neutrons, this is a superfluid. It has zero fraction. The result is that if the outer layers of the neutron star are decellerated, the core can spin faster than the outer sphere.
      Add to this the fact that the remaining protons create cooper pairs and act as a REALLLY high temperature superconductor, a complicated mesh of magnetic flow vortices is build in the star. This can create the famous "star quakes", in which a pulsar (spinning neutron star) suddenly rotates faster.
      The core simply decellerates, accelerating the rest of the star

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  69. Not entirely true. by b-baggins · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not exactly true. Naturally occurring Plutonium exists in trace amounts in Pitchblend. It is more common in supernova remnants.

    From the EPA website:

    In extremely rare cases, rocks with a high localized concentration of uranium can provide the right conditions for making small amounts of plutonium naturally. This natural process is called spontaneous fission. Only very small (trace) amounts of natural plutonium have ever been found in nature.

    --
    You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
  70. Ds is naturally occuring... by rickmccl · · Score: 1

    ...in fist-sized nodules known as "Ds Nuts".

  71. Naming Rights by pdhenry · · Score: 2, Funny

    IMO, it would help out the scientific community immensely if we were to sell the naming rights for new elements to the highest bidder. Instead of some faceless community pondering the appropriate name, just put it on the auction block. Then we'd get meaningful names suitable for posterity, like Enron (pronounced En-ern), Pacbellium, Microsoftite, Pepsium...

  72. Limits on "natural" by siskbc · · Score: 2, Interesting
    All existing naturally ocurring heavy elements are the result of ancient supernovae. It is quite possible that these new elements already exist around other supernovae, which whilst catastropic, are definitely natural. It is just that none was around when the earth coalesced.

    Good point - how about, 92 is the heaviest element occurring naturally in a 4.5B-year-old planet?

    Of course, given that some of these really heavy ones have half-lives many times less than a second (this one is 110 microseconds), it seems fair to say that, for all intents and purposes, none is left. If a supernovae somehow made 10^10,000,000 atoms of this, around one atom would be left after an hour. Note that I don't think there are any stars this large.

    End result is that, by the time any planet has formed in which this stuff can occur, it will have decayed.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    1. Re:Limits on "natural" by hughk · · Score: 1
      What is natural - supernovae are definitely a natural occurring incidents, albeit somewhat disasterous. Particles may also be formed during cosmic ray showers, god's lineac certainly packs some punch.

      The transuranics (and abnormal isotopes) we see on earth are usually the result of artificial action - reactors or accelerators, but others do naturally exist, perhaps not at this moment on earth though.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  73. Already named by slavemowgli · · Score: 2, Informative

    Isn't that name already the official name for element 110? According to Wikipedia, the name was officially accepted by the IUPAC in May 2003 already.

    --
    quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  74. Re:WAIT! It's already been done!! by freeweed · · Score: 1

    Atomic Weight: 120 +/-

    That must be in kilos, right? I'd give my left nut to find a 120 lb woman, who's also not 4'8".

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  75. Re:Dutch joke from local perspective by WTFmonkey · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So, you guys are in other places, huh? I thought the US was the only country with computers. Except for Japan, but they just make video games. I didn't know the internet was hooked up to other countries! That must be one big phone line, ha ha!

  76. Re:WAIT! It's already been done!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'd give my left nut to find a 120 lb woman, who's also not 4'8".

    Jesus, where do you live, Milwaukee?

    -- anti-Wisconsin troll

  77. What's binding energy made of? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting


    nothing else just a question

    1. Re:What's binding energy made of? by ralphclark · · Score: 1

      The "strong" nuclear force is largely responsible for holding the atomic nucleus together. If I remember correctly it is the same force that holds the quarks together inside each proton and neutron. This used to be referred to as "color force" and the particles that mediate it are known as gluons. If the theory has changed or if I have got this plain mixed up, I'm sure some nuclear physicist will happen by and correct me.

      Also, somebody earlier implied that neutrons hold the nucleus together. Not strictly true - the strong force is attractive between all the nucleons, but the positive electrical charge on the protons has a stronger repulsive effect at close range. The neutrons space out the protons, "diluting" the positive charge, allowing the attractive strong force to predominate.

  78. Re:Element 101 (in norse mythology and culture) by lordholm · · Score: 1

    Many, many years ago the norsemen beleved that the fifth element was Ice.

    --
    "Civis Europaeus sum!"
  79. It was also the birthplace of Catherine the Great by anonymous+cupboard · · Score: 1

    Yes, of Russia. She was one of the main modernising czarinas, apparently getting the job after her husband was disposed of (not by her though). Of geek relevance was the fact that she paid for various natural philosphers to visit St Petersburg and discuss their work.

  80. Stargate Command already named it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Sorry, dudes, SGC already named this element. It's called "naquada" (sp?). Of course, due to the top secret classification of SG-1, you won't see it published in scientific journals. Oops, secret's out! Oh, and Saddam and Osama are Gu'ald... ;-)

  81. What about... by El_Servas · · Score: 1

    Googlium?

  82. Some times nationalistic names are appropriate. by biogeojeff · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Take Europium. It is the most reactive of the rare earth elements, but there are no commercial applications for europium metal.

  83. Re:Dutch joke from local perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't you know? We send our messages by pidgeon, some dude in the US types them in.

  84. A New Element Discovered! by Josh+Booth · · Score: 2, Funny

    A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. This new element has been tentatively named "Administratium."

    Administratium has 1 neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 111 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by a force called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

    Since Administratium has no electrons, it is inert.However, it can be detected as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Administratium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete when it would normally take less than a second.

    Administratium has a normal half-life of three years; it does not decay but instead undergoes reorganization. In fact, Administratium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization causes some morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to speculate that Administratium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "critical morass." You will know it when you see it...

    1. Re:A New Element Discovered! by Gherald · · Score: 1

      Hilarious, dude. Did you make that up yourself?

      I give you a virtual +5...

    2. Re:A New Element Discovered! by Josh+Booth · · Score: 1

      No clue where I got it originally because I saved it. I googled and found it everywhere. The first time I saw it, I read it about three or four times and it still was hilarious.

  85. Only five elements away from naming Element 115... by DarklordJonnyDigital · · Score: 1

    In other news, scientists plan to officially give Element 115 (Ununpentium) a proper name.

    If the Pentagon has enough of a sense of humour to congratulate the leader of the Autobots for joining the army, I'm sure the scientific community can see it's way to naming the 115th element Elerium! ;)

    (Everyone knows that's its "real" name, after all...)

  86. how about... by MoFoQ · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Bs, Bullshitium since this year seems to be one full of it....with SCO and sh.....schtuff

  87. iraq? by CiXeL · · Score: 1

    Hussainium?

  88. Re:Totally offtopic.... by sllim · · Score: 1

    Possibly because I was attempting to make an ass out of him in front of my other cow-workers.

  89. If Element 110 had been discovered at Caltech... by mbstone · · Score: 1

    would they be calling it HarborFreewaium?

  90. 101 = 5 = Fifth Element! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's LOVE!

  91. A pile of 312 neutrons by kievit · · Score: 2, Funny
    But I don't remember why you can't just have a pile of neutrons...

    Actually, you can and you hardly need to do anything for it. It happens all by itself. Let me refresh your memory:

    The heaviest element known to science was recently discovered by investigators at a major U.S. research university. The element, tentatively named administratium, has no protons or electrons and thus has an atomic number of 0. However, it does have one neutron, 125 assistant neutrons, 75 vice neutrons and 111 assistant vice neutrons, which gives it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by a force that involves the continuous exchange of meson-like particles called morons.

    Since it has no electrons, administratium is inert. However, it can be detected chemically as it impedes every reaction it comes in contact with. According to the discoverers, a minute amount of administratium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete when it would have normally occurred in less than a second.

    Administratium has a normal half-life of approximately three years, at which time it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which assistant neutrons, vice neutrons and assistant vice neutrons exchange places. Some studies have shown that the atomic mass actually increases after each reorganization.

    Research at other laboratories indicates that administratium occurs naturally in the atmosphere. It tends to concentrate at certain points such as government agencies, large corporations, and universities. It can usually be found in the newest, best appointed, and best maintained buildings.

    Scientists point out that administratium is known to be toxic at any level of concentration and can easily destroy any productive reaction where it is allowed to accumulate. Attempts are being made to determine how administratium can be controlled to prevent irreversible damage, but results to date are not promising.

    (written by William DeBuvitz in April 1988, published in the January 1989 issue of The Physics Teacher; there is also a related publication by Ellin Beltz about Administrontium)

  92. Reasonable limits by siskbc · · Score: 1
    What is natural - supernovae are definitely a natural occurring incidents, albeit somewhat disasterous. Particles may also be formed during cosmic ray showers, god's lineac certainly packs some punch.

    You forgot the "occurring" that always follows the "natural" there. Many of the transuranics (such as 114) do not, as I mentioned, persist longer than a microsecond. For this reason, I think using the term "occurring" is a bit unrealistic. Not only will they not occur on Earth, they will not occur in any planet because it will take the planet longer to form than they will exist.

    The transuranics (and abnormal isotopes) we see on earth are usually the result of artificial action - reactors or accelerators, but others do naturally exist, perhaps not at this moment on earth though.

    Like I said, they exist nowhere except briefly, in about a microsecond after a supernova. Hell, they can't even form stable atoms - by the time they cool down to temperatures where they can take electrons, they don't exist any longer. Considering that the periodic table is designed for chemistry, and chemistry doesn't occur without electron interactions, that's a reasonable requirement for "existence."

    You have to have the most liberal definition of "exist" possible to call these "naturally occuring." But I don't think it's proper to correct those who are saying that they don't exist narually in a state of matter that one is accustomed to. I think granting the last half of that statement is reasonable.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  93. obligatory *Spinal Tap* Reference... by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

    Chemical Element 110, it goes to 111... :)

    --
    "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  94. Element violates SCO ip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they want to continue use of this element they will have to license it. We will have a "special" discount, no refund license, going till we leave for prison in October.