backtop


Print 57 comment(s) - last by gstrickler.. on Feb 28 at 7:24 PM


Element 112, formerly know as Ununbium has been officially recognized by IUPAC, and named "Copernicum".  (Source: New Scientist)
Newly recognized element is first in 5 years; your science texts are now officially outdated

The periodic table is about to get something new -- "Copernicum".  Element 112 (copernicum), originally discovered in 1996 by a group led by Sigurd Hofmann at the Centre for Heavy Ion Research (GSI) in Darmstadt, Germany, will be added to official periodic tables in the next couple weeks after official recognition by the The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry.

Previously, copernicum could be found in many science texts under the name "Ununbium", at the same spot (112), right next to roentgenium.  That means that it has 112 protons -- 20 more than uranium, the heaviest naturally occurring element.

The discovery and verification of Copernicum was a compelling tale.  It began in 1996 when Hoffman's team was firing zinc atoms into pieces of lead looking for new elements.  Radioactive elements emit particles with distinct energies, providing researchers with means to positively identify them.

Hoffman's team detected a sequence of alpha particle emissions (alpha particles consist of two protons and two neutrons) coming from one of the resulting atoms.  After five emissions, a sixth emission yielded an alpha particle with the same energy as nobelium, element 102.  This led the researchers to conclude that they had created an element with 112 protons (102+2+2+2+2+2=112).

The team also seemingly discovered a second set of collision data that appeared to be a second 112 proton atom.  However, there were problems with the data.  The data for the first-detected atom did not match element 104, rutherfordium, for the second to last decay's energy.  Further, the second set of data didn't match up to the first one at all.

Primarily on the grounds of the second problem, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) rejected Hoffman's bid to recognize the element.

After the reject the researchers discovered why the second observed atom was so problematic -- because it was (allegedly) "spuriously created" by Victor Ninov, a researcher working on the project at the time.  There was no evidence of the decay chain in the data files for the project; the researchers concluded that Ninov made it up, and requested a retraction of the 1996 study.

Soon after, Ninov was caught falsifying data while working on a project that was trying to find element 118 in Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in California.

Undeterred by the stunning betrayal, Hoffman's team marched ahead, rerunning the test.  However, a second bid for verification in 2003 was tossed by IUPAC.  IUPAC argued that the decay chain was different to the first and could not be repeated.

The next year a team led by Kosuke Morita at the RIKEN superheavy element laboratory in Wako, Japan discovered the reason for the differences.  The RIKEN team created two carefully documented 112-proton atoms and discovered that the new element could follow two different alpha decay paths.

Some argue that IUPAC is too slow at recognizing newly discovered elements (the reason for the temporary names that typically begin with a U).  However, misconduct like Ninov's justifies the thoroughness of the validation process, says Paul Karol of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who chaired the IUPAC panel.  He states, "We are told that we are too slow, but this experience also gives us fuel for maintaining that position."

In the late 1990s, another important discovery relating to copernicum was made.  Yuri Oganessian at the Joint Institute of Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia reported creating a "heavy" 112-proton atom with more neutrons than the 165 found in Hoffman's atom.  While the results were unable to be replicated at the LBNL, later Oganessian's team made more heavy 112 atoms that were independently confirmed. 

Hoffman's atom breaks down within fractions of a millisecond, but Oganessian's "heavy" copernicum lasts for 4 seconds, the time it takes to reach its first half-life.  That allowed copernicum's boiling point (80 °C) to be measured.

The hunt for new elements will not stop with copernicum.  It may be some time before another element is approved -- the last one to be approved before copernicum was roentgenium, which was confirmed by IUPAC in 2004, six years ago.  Still the hunt will continue, even if its a slow one.  Describes Hoffman, "The aim is to find the end of the periodic table."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Didn't they see Avatar?!
By nstott on 2/25/2010 9:11:28 AM , Rating: 2
You mean they didn't name it Unobtainium?!




RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By Connoisseur on 2/25/2010 9:21:02 AM , Rating: 3
Oakley trademarked it already :P


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By webdawg77 on 2/25/2010 9:25:51 AM , Rating: 2
Nah, we won't find that until we visit another planet with 10' tall blue people with tails ;).


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By Anoxanmore on 2/25/2010 9:36:41 AM , Rating: 2
We are looking Atium, that way we can see the future after we ingest the metal. :D


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By Motamid on 2/25/2010 12:23:49 PM , Rating: 2
And with it it's alloy Malatium, although less useful. Nice Mistborn reference :)


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By Anoxanmore on 2/25/2010 1:06:54 PM , Rating: 2
I am impressed someone got it. :-)

I read a lot.


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By mmatis on 2/25/2010 5:41:19 PM , Rating: 3
That is just so You! Always looking for some tail.

And never getting any, by the way...


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By mmatis on 2/25/2010 5:41:26 PM , Rating: 2
That is just so You! Always looking for some tail.

And never getting any, by the way...


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By mmatis on 2/25/2010 5:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
Web site strikes again - dual post with one click! Climate change must be the cause - yeah, that's the ticket!


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By Sulphademus on 2/25/2010 9:30:58 AM , Rating: 3
Unobtainium predates Avatar.

Did they really use that as the name of the mineral they were after in that movie? Sad...


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By Motoman on 2/25/2010 9:43:03 AM , Rating: 2
Yes. Although it was never really clear to me whether or not they were using the term in jest.

"Unobtanium" is a term that has been in use in the motorcycle industry, and probably others, for a minimum of the past 30 years. It's used as a euphamism to refer to something you can't get. Like one-off handmade parts on a factory racebike.

"Oooo...look at that trick titanium sub-frame on that factory Yamaha! I want one!"

"Can't have one. It's unobtanium."


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By bhieb on 2/25/2010 10:00:08 AM , Rating: 2
Yes and from strictly a Sci-Fi movie perspective it was also used in The Core.


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By delphinus100 on 2/25/2010 11:58:23 AM , Rating: 3
"...has been in use in the motorcycle industry, and probably others..."

Yep. It's been used in aerospace forever, referring to materials with the lightness and/or strength and/or high temperature performance, etc. that you's like for your project or design, that doesn't yet exist.

The joke only works if you know these things, and I doubt most people do...


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By namechamps on 2/25/2010 3:43:45 PM , Rating: 1
I doubt the people making Avatar got the joke either.
Sadly I think they picked it because it was "kewl".


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By Jedi2155 on 2/25/2010 5:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the director James Cameron actually has some background in Physics, so I'm more inclined to believe that they did it purposely.


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By nafhan on 2/25/2010 9:54:15 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, unobtanium would make sense as a name for any of the higher atomic number elements, as they're literally unobtainable in quantities higher than just a few atoms and disappear after very small fractions of a second. IUPAC would never go for it, though...


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By nstott on 2/25/2010 10:49:30 AM , Rating: 2
While my initial post was meant as a joke, you are correct. The best candidate to name 'Unobtainium' would be element 117 (Ununseptium) since an odd number of protons means even less stability (It hasn't been created yet whereas element 118 has).


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By porkpie on 2/25/2010 1:58:29 PM , Rating: 2
Not all the higher-atomic number elements are guaranteed unstable. Nuclear physicists have been looking for the theorized 'island of stability' for many years...elements within it might last for decades or longer.


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By jeff834 on 2/25/2010 6:03:35 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the element unobtanium was thought of years before in the terrible movie "The Core". That one didn't make $2.5B though...


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By blueboy09 on 2/25/2010 8:24:11 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't that the same thing that Wolverine had injected in his skeletal system? Any takers on this? - BLUEBOY


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By porkpie on 2/25/2010 9:27:35 PM , Rating: 2
That's 'adamantium'...another mythical element that predates the movie by several centuries.


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By B166ER on 2/25/2010 10:01:16 PM , Rating: 2
Adamantium isnt mythical in your context, you're thinking of Mythral. Adamantium was made up in Marvel Comics Universe, where Mythral (or Mithral) is from the Tolkiens days of fantasy literature.


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By B166ER on 2/25/2010 10:05:27 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, my bad, your reference is somewhat correct (I didn't read the post you were responding to), however words like mythical and centuries would not be a characteristic of Adamantium. First used in 1969, in Marvel Comics.


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By porkpie on 2/25/2010 10:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
Not quite; adamantium (in the form "adamantine") was first used by Virgil in the year 29 BC, and many times since then. Marvel simply updated the spelling to conform to the modern-day "ium" ending.


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By MrPoletski on 2/26/2010 5:02:21 AM , Rating: 2
TIBERIUM!


RE: Didn't they see Avatar?!
By Mitch101 on 2/26/2010 11:50:51 AM , Rating: 2
James T. Kirk? ;)


Not impressed......
By Beefmeister on 2/25/2010 9:20:40 AM , Rating: 5
I'm not impressed. Where is my elerium-115?




RE: Not impressed......
By Gholam on 2/25/2010 9:39:53 AM , Rating: 5
As you may well remember, Elerium-115 can only be obtained from extraterrestrial sources.


RE: Not impressed......
By bug77 on 2/25/2010 10:09:43 AM , Rating: 3
Yet I clearly remember having lots of it. Enough to power a few airships, guns for the people on board and some base defenses. Good ol' days...


RE: Not impressed......
By Anoxanmore on 2/25/2010 10:31:17 AM , Rating: 2
We were require more minerals.

:P


RE: Not impressed......
By Smartless on 2/25/2010 2:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah just don't throw a grenade in the UFO next to the red glowing lightbulb.


RE: Not impressed......
By supermitsuba on 2/25/2010 10:45:46 AM , Rating: 3
You have to take a few scientist away from researching the sectoid navigator and put it towards the elerium-115 research. The research will take forever if only one scientist is allocated.


RE: Not impressed......
By Silver2k7 on 2/26/2010 5:37:21 AM , Rating: 2
Ask Bob Lazar for it, didn't he have some Element 115 ;)


Where are these..
By zsdersw on 2/25/2010 10:26:46 AM , Rating: 2
Where are these wonders:

Duranium, neutronium, tritanium, and transparent aluminum.




RE: Where are these..
By SPOOFE on 2/25/2010 3:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
Neutronium isn't an element; it's a cutesy term for "pile o' neutrons".


RE: Where are these..
By porkpie on 2/25/2010 5:07:04 PM , Rating: 2
Not quite correct. As originally postulated, neutronium was element 0 on the periodic table.

In current usage, "neutronium" has no actual scientific meaning...its a pop sci term. Is a degenerate neutron gas an element or not? Opinions vary among condensed matter physicists.


RE: Where are these..
By zsdersw on 2/26/2010 10:30:59 AM , Rating: 2
Apparently you've never seen Star Trek.


RE: Where are these..
By Silver2k7 on 2/26/2010 5:40:20 AM , Rating: 2
can we make transperant metals, or is that sci-fi btw?
transperent metals would be cool :)


RE: Where are these..
By zsdersw on 2/26/2010 10:32:25 AM , Rating: 2
Well, we can with aluminum.. but not transparent for the visible light section of the spectrum, and even then it's only for a tiny fraction of a second.

It's just a fictional material from Star Trek 4 and it was also mentioned in a TNG episode.


RE: Where are these..
By porkpie on 2/26/2010 12:28:01 PM , Rating: 2
Metallic sodium is transparent under high pressures. Many other metals (most notably gold) are often made into sheets so thin as to be virtually transparent...you often see office windows coated with a very thin gold foil, to lower temperatures inside.


RE: Where are these..
By JediJeb on 2/26/2010 5:50:56 PM , Rating: 2
Of course mixed with oxygen many of the metals can be transparent, Silicates which are regular glass are one. Also Potassium Bromide when compressed becomes a transparent crystal used as windows in spectrometers.


RE: Where are these..
By gstrickler on 2/28/2010 7:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
Sort of. Look up AlON Aluminium Oxynitride or transparent alumina. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparent_alumina


Victor Ninov?
By Maradon on 2/25/2010 10:33:31 AM , Rating: 2
Caught falsifying data twice on similar projects? What reason could a person possibly have for sabotaging the discovery of transuranium elements?




RE: Victor Ninov?
By djc208 on 2/25/2010 10:49:45 AM , Rating: 2
The transuranium groupies?


RE: Victor Ninov?
By Dorkyman on 2/25/2010 11:23:42 AM , Rating: 3
That would be a good name for a rock band.


RE: Victor Ninov?
By Scabies on 2/25/2010 11:24:43 AM , Rating: 2
ex-climatologist?


RE: Victor Ninov?
By namechamps on 2/25/2010 3:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
Or climatologist in training.

Might look good on a resume if you are into pretend sciences.


RE: Victor Ninov?
By thepalinator on 2/28/2010 1:28:47 AM , Rating: 1
Especially if you're good at deleting incriminating emails. I hear you're basically guaranteed a job in climatology with credentials like that.


Error
By Shadowself on 2/25/2010 2:51:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That means that it has 112 protons -- 20 more than uranium, the heaviest naturally occurring element.


Actually, there is a well documented case of a natural rector (long inactive) that had/has verifiable traces of Plutonium in it. Thus Uranium is not the heaviest naturally occurring element -- at least not on this planet.




RE: Error
By SPOOFE on 2/25/2010 3:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
Are you talking about Oklo? I thought that was a critical mass of U235 that mixed with hard groundwater. I didn't know Plutonium was involved. Got a link?


RE: Error
By porkpie on 2/25/2010 5:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
The term 'naturally occurring' refers to an element which has stable isotopes. If you're only interested in a few stray atoms, then you can find ANY element in nature if you look long and hard enough.


It's Copernicium, not Copernicum
By Chaotic42 on 2/25/2010 5:20:33 PM , Rating: 3
Per the link in the story, it's Copernicium. I believe that all new elements have to end in -ium.




By gstrickler on 2/28/2010 7:11:03 PM , Rating: 2
It's a Jason Mick article. Surely you didn't expect it to be accurate, did you?


Question
By eddieroolz on 2/26/2010 2:54:20 AM , Rating: 2
I have a question for you guys.

I don't understand the rationale for continuing search for "elements" even when these obviously don't exist in nature and require to be synthesized.

How can we really call these "elements" when they are not in fact essential to any life form?

Any explanations would be gladly appreciated.




RE: Question
By martinw on 2/26/2010 3:18:31 AM , Rating: 3
What does being "essential to any life form" have to do with being an element or not? An element is simply an atom with a particular number of protons in its nucleus, it has nothing to do with whether it is useful for life.

As for why to do the research, well one thing is that, as someone mentioned earlier, there may be an island of stability where long lived elements exist that may have new and interesting properties. But mainly it is the same drive as applies to most fundamental science, the search to push back the boundaries, find new stuff, explore the limits of what is possible with the technology we have etc.

If you don't go poking around in strange corners, you might miss our on something interesting, and one of the things that marks us out as a species is a quest for knowledge for its own sake.


Really?
By chagrinnin on 2/25/2010 10:02:51 AM , Rating: 2
They used a name like Rutherfordium and yet Sigurdium or Hofmannium weren't good enough? If I were Sigurd I'd be pissed.




RE: Really?
By gfxBill on 2/26/2010 12:06:16 AM , Rating: 2
Meh - it wasn't named Rutherfordium because Rutherford discovered it, but in his honour. I doubt whether Sigurd is "pissed".


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki