elas Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38674 The above forum explains my proposal for a Structural Table of the Elements to this I have added in the graph below, the new element 122 and elements 119, 120, and 121. Inserted at the top left is the continuation of the table used to construct the original graph. Inserted at the bottom right is a new table showing in the left hand column, the number of inner electrons; the centre and right hand columns show the mathematical progression that can be used for prediction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 What I want to know is this, are these supposed super heavy elements thought to be really stable like bismuth or just semi stable like uranium? (yeah i know probably full of grammar errors....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elas Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 What I want to know is this, are these supposed super heavy elements thought to be really stable like bismuth or just semi stable like uranium? (yeah i know probably full of grammar errors....) They are unstable, a few have been created in an ionic form, in most only the nucleus has been created; but theorist have predicted (I have yet to find an expanation of how) that another batch of stable elements exist higher in the order of elements; of which element 122 is the first to be discovered.(Element 122 was discovered [i.e. not created in a colider]). The stability of atoms of any element is determined by the number of neutrons, but this far there is no complete explanation of how the number of neutrons is determined and therefore, no method of predicting the number of neutrons required for stability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toastywombel Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 This is very interesting, if it is true and that a batch of super-heavy elements is on the brink of being found this could dramatically change chemistry. What will be even more awesome is if and when we get to explore the properties of this newly discovered super-heavy element. Maybe it will turn out to be the philosopher's stone!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elas Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 This is very interesting, if it is true and that a batch of super-heavy elements is on the brink of being found this could dramatically change chemistry. What will be even more awesome is if and when we get to explore the properties of this newly discovered super-heavy element. Maybe it will turn out to be the philosopher's stone!!! Yes, there should be 24 elements with electrons on an eigth shell. given that the first known stable element is 122 then there is some hope that stability will continue up to element 137 or 138. Most of these 24 elements should be Actinides, but 141 should be an unstable Halogen and 142 should be an unstable Nobel gas. Of course, there is always the possibility that a totally new and unpredictable class of element will put in an appearance, only the first two and the last six on any new shell can be predicted with any confidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Yes, there should be 24 elements with electrons on an eigth shell. given that the first known stable element is 122 then there is some hope that stability will continue up to element 137 or 138. Most of these 24 elements should be Actinides, but 141 should be an unstable Halogen and 142 should be an unstable Nobel gas. Of course, there is always the possibility that a totally new and unpredictable class of element will put in an appearance, only the first two and the last six on any new shell can be predicted with any confidence. In which model does electron configuration affect nuclear stability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toastywombel Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 In which model does electron configuration affect nuclear stability? The Magical Mystery Model? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 So no way to know if they will really be stable or just more radioactive elements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha31 Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 This is very interesting, if it is true and that a batch of super-heavy elements is on the brink of being found this could dramatically change chemistry. What will be even more awesome is if and when we get to explore the properties of this newly discovered super-heavy element. Maybe it will turn out to be the philosopher's stone!!! White powder gold - monoatomic gold, they call "philosopher's stone", for some reason. I have no idea what is claimed this thing can do, but the existence of this substance and the story of its discovery seem to be quite true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 White powder gold - monoatomic gold, they call "philosopher's stone", for some reason. I have no idea what is claimed this thing can do, but the existence of this substance and the story of its discovery seem to be quite true. No, it's crap. Discussions here and here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toastywombel Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 White powder gold - monoatomic gold, they call "philosopher's stone", for some reason. I have no idea what is claimed this thing can do, but the existence of this substance and the story of its discovery seem to be quite true. Maybe you are un-aware of this, but the philosopher's stone is suppose to be a substance that turns any base metals it touches (mainly referring to lead) it touches into gold. It is not white powder gold. Hope I helped clear up your misunderstanding . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 toasty, there is a particular brand of nutjob out there who believe that monatomic gold has magical properties. also, if you atomize gold it will be black and not white. there's a bunch of hooey about the electrons being in a special configuration that changes the shape of the nucleus into a line of nucleons or some other magic shape of the week. the guy who 'invented it' also claims that he can extract 50kg of rare earth metals per tonne of any soil. if there really was 50kg of rare earth metals per tonne of soil then they would not be rare earth metals and they wouldn't even be a tenth the price they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toastywombel Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Well thank you clarifying that for me insane_alien. I really had no idea what white gold powder was, when sha31 mentioned it. Also when I mentioned that the super-heavy element discovered maybe the philosopher's stone I was just joking, I hope you know. Sha31 seemed to believe I actually was being serious and hoping it was the philosopher's stone and so I guess he cited the white gold powder as being the philosopher's stone. Now that you clarified it and I read the posts swansont linked it does seem like hooey. And the rare-earth metals thing is ridiculous, if what that person says claims to be true was, I don't think it would be possible to grow anything in any soil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elas Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 (edited) In which model does electron configuration affect nuclear stability? I have not said that electrons do; shortly after the submission to this forum, on the forum below; I submitted an explanation using isotopes: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=532291#post532291 In both cases I used the same field structure that I have used throughout all my submissions, nature repeats Newton's field structure over and over again in all structures; fundamental particle, composite particle, atoms, planetary systems and even black holes. (My excitement is because the discovery of element 122 allows me to include atomic structure in this statement for the very first time). Note that using shell structure lead me to predict that the largest atomic structure would be 137 or 138, using isotopes the prediction is 136. Given that we are entering into the comparatively new field of transuranic elements these are a reasonably close predictions. Edited December 13, 2009 by elas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now