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."

64 of 291 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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/
    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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

    6. 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.

  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 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?

    2. 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

    3. 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
    4. 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...

    5. 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.

    6. 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
    7. 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
    8. 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"
    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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 ...
    12. 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?

    13. 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.

    14. 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.

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

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

    --

  4. 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.

  5. 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.
  6. Named Tomorrow? by Joe+Jordan · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  7. 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.

  8. 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".

  9. 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.

  10. 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 I+don't+want+to+spen · · Score: 3, Funny

      Surely its Dalmatianum.

      --
      Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
    2. 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
    3. 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!
    4. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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. :-)

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

    "Pounds - not kilograms?"

    Or, married vs looking.

  14. 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 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)'
  15. 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!
  16. And there I was... by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...thinking that it was already called Ununnilium.

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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-)
  17. And hence... by Salsaman · · Score: 4, Funny
    ...they should really name this element "damnhardtomakeium".

  18. 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.
  19. Off topic but... by CGP314 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

  21. 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!
  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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
  25. 110 prefers to be called by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Element Formerly Known As Ununnilium.

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

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

  27. 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

  28. 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
  29. 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.
  30. 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
  31. 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...

  32. 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

  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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...

  36. 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)