metalresearcher
National Hazard
Posts: 758
Registered: 7-9-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: Reactive
|
|
Will we ever obtain superheavy elements ?
This is probably an Unobtanium or Vibranium discussion.
The (virtual) elements above 100, starting with 100 Fermium are never produced in weighable amounts, because their very short half life and very
difficult to produce quantities more than a few atoms. The same applies to the natural elements 85 At and 87 Fr produced in minute amounts as an
intermediate as a decay of U and Th.
Will we ever be able to make these elements in:
* A half life so long that they not pose any danger
* weighable amounts to determine real physical or chemical properties (and not predicted as is the case now)
* or even kilogram amounts to allow make a real-life applcation
Think about super noble metal 111 or superheavy in density 108...
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1725
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
Short answer: Nobody knows yet.
Long answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
karlos³
International Hazard
Posts: 1520
Registered: 10-1-2011
Location: yes!
Member Is Offline
Mood: oxazolidinic 8)
|
|
I opened that thread, and the last line was Fulmen's short answer, and I immediately thought "island of stability!".
Then I scrolled down.
Meh.
Fascinating to hypothesise about, but reality might be even stranger.
Hope we will find out at some point.
|
|
|
metalresearcher
National Hazard
Posts: 758
Registered: 7-9-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: Reactive
|
|
I know, this so-called "island of stability" contains only heavy radioactive elements which are only slightly less radioactive than the surrounding
elements (i.e minutes instead of seconds), but not useful for technical applications. E.g the mentioned elements 114 and 126 with "magic numbers"
would already exist and found in nature if they ate that "stable".
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1725
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
There is a gray area between "too short for practical use" and "long enough to be present in nature". Personally I doubt there is anything of
practical value there, but there's only one way of being sure :-)
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
Fyndium
International Hazard
Posts: 1192
Registered: 12-7-2020
Location: Not in USA
Member Is Offline
|
|
We can make artificial elements in the future. Right after we start 3D printing molecules. Trust me.
|
|
|
karlos³
International Hazard
Posts: 1520
Registered: 10-1-2011
Location: yes!
Member Is Offline
Mood: oxazolidinic 8)
|
|
Doesn't that make you guys sad?
As soon as "we" start printing molecules, us chemists are old iron, something of the past... living fossils, so to say.
We can run our labs, but it will be considered like medieval market larping is to people nowadays.
We will be like alchemists, funny to watch at, but sooo outdated, its just funny to anyone except us.
As soon as the first molecules get printed, we are out of business.
Biotechnologists as well, but I guess they haven't thought about that yet.
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6333
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: At home
Member Is Offline
Mood: Most of the ducks are in a row
|
|
| Quote: | Will we ever be able to make these elements in:
* A half life so long that they not pose any danger
* weighable amounts to determine real physical or chemical properties (and not predicted as is the case now)
* or even kilogram amounts to allow make a real-life applcation |
1. Wrong metric. It is not the short half life causing it to be dangerous at this level, it is the fact that our methods for production are in the
order of a few atoms at a time. The volumes are just not there to cause harm. Maybe I am short-sighted here, but I cannot conceive of a methodology
that would produce superheavies other than smacking together two existing elements. And that is whether or not an island of stability exists.
2. Weighable amounts -- no I can't see it happening. Sufficient to determine physical properties, same problem. Sufficient to determine chemical
properties: this is already being done with some of the superheavies even when the half life is in microseconds.
3. Kilo amounts is just fantasy IMO. And if you did achieve it, the radiation would be uh... problematic. I would want a decent distance between me
and a few grams of polonium. Larger elements will not be any easier to manage. And then there is the problem of critical mass.
I think it likely that something like an island of stability exists. But it is more likely to be a submerged reef than an actual island. That is,
there may be some isotopes in a range that are more stable than surrounding isotopes but still with miniscule half lives. I predict the time period
between successive discoveries will become longer and longer. And that the even numbered elements will continue to be found before the odds. I
predict that independent confirmaton of discoveries will take even longer as a proportion of discovery time. I also predict the occasional flare up
and confusion over naming as has happened in the past, albeit a more civil process. And I am not picking anything direcly useful from these elements
aside from gaining a deeper understanding of nuclear processes which may assist with teh next generation of nuclear reactors and sophisticated
treatment of current nuclear waste stockpiles.
|
|
|
metalresearcher
National Hazard
Posts: 758
Registered: 7-9-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: Reactive
|
|
j_sum1: I agree, it won't happen. I just summed up the three points which are requirements to make these elements useful and, as you say, they will
not.
With the existing 88 elements we have enough.
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1725
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
j_sum: I agree, it will probably be more of a reef than an island. And while there is some knowledge to be gained from mapping it I suspect it will
also be the end of most efforts into new elements.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by karlos³  |
Doesn't that make you guys sad?
As soon as "we" start printing molecules, us chemists are old iron, something of the past... living fossils, so to say.
We can run our labs, but it will be considered like medieval market larping is to people nowadays.
We will be like alchemists, funny to watch at, but sooo outdated, its just funny to anyone except us.
As soon as the first molecules get printed, we are out of business.
Biotechnologists as well, but I guess they haven't thought about that yet. |
You can 3d print your molecules, one at a time, or I , as a chemist, can make them in batches of about 10^20.
Which of these techniques is useful?
|
|
|
BromicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 3253
Registered: 13-7-2003
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Rock n' Roll
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-244
Half-life of 80 milliion years and still not conclusively detected as a primordial element.
[Edited on 7/19/2021 by BromicAcid]
|
|
|
metalresearcher
National Hazard
Posts: 758
Registered: 7-9-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: Reactive
|
|
That is another reason that these 114 and 126 (or other superheavy element samples), even with this relatively short half life do not occur in nature.
Moreover, the way the Oak Ridge and Dubna and Darmstadt labs try to synthesize 110+ elements is very inefficient only a few atoms per year on a
particle accelerator running continuously.
An r-process would be much more efficient, but technology is not that far and can only be done with lots (and much more than in the 1950s Ivy Mike like tests which produced tiny amounts of Es and Fm) of nuclear bombs. And that is obvously infeasable.
[Edited on 2021-7-20 by metalresearcher]
|
|
|
Quieraña
Harmless
Posts: 38
Registered: 24-8-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
This is a fun and yet even noble topic to me. We too often forget that the Higg's BOSON is a boson and that one day we will find a method to producing
it as if nakedly from a "laser". I put quotes around laser bc we dont know what it looks like enmasse, just like these other elements (85 and 87).
Here is what I believe I believe that we are going to be able to prove that not only is the Higgs boson available in a specific part of the known
electromagnetic spectrum technically outside of the normal range but also that it's easy to get to and is dark energy. Or a component of it. I don't
believe that it's going to be extremely easy the way I'm making it sound on here but I I do believe that in a Quantum world how we portray things is
often how they can be the way crystals grow even in a catalyzed reaction. The objective is simple enough once we acquire a naked Higgs beam. Assuming
what I'm saying is correct then it would only take the spectroscopic signature of the substance wanted and paired with that other bows on that I'm
speaking on that is produced in Mass via several methods one which I'm disclosing with my local college and then hopes will be seen on the news soon
relatively soon. It is obviously simple that E=mc2 and since all equations have an equal opposite then also M=EC2 and if that's true then this
conversation will be a lot more fun and we'll be playing with particles that have a hundred thousand protons for example in the future and will
probably look like a microscopic neutron star. This will be the only science that proves itself proven to the prove or even before they proven it and
even in this case before they knew what was going on or we're even believable by any other scientist has the case now I'm certain. But then again I'm
saying dark energy is the Higgs boson beam or family thereof I've even been so Cavalier as to say that the particles of dark energy are the skiaon,
the skotadion and the mauron. More will be revealed.
|
|
|
karlos³
International Hazard
Posts: 1520
Registered: 10-1-2011
Location: yes!
Member Is Offline
Mood: oxazolidinic 8)
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by unionised |
You can 3d print your molecules, one at a time, or I , as a chemist, can make them in batches of about 10^20.
Which of these techniques is useful?
|
Not to add much further OT... but thats true, for now.
But who knows how it might look in twenty years?
If they can print complex molecules at this point, they can possibly print simple complex molecule printing nanomachines in maybe a few years, and at
that point they aren't far from running batch "chemistry" in notable amounts.
I don't think its that far fetched, but maybe I read too much scifi.
I think, at the current pace, we might see such things in our living time.
Sorry for the OT, I'm out of the discussion now.
|
|
|
macckone
Dispenser of practical lab wisdom
Posts: 2168
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
The only potential site for plutonium on earth would be the oklo site.
And even there it would be pretty well decayed by now.
U238 would have to undergo 6 neutron capture events to get Pu-244.
There are various pathways from U-239, U-240, and U-242.
Those decay to Neptunium via a Beta pathway.
And most heavier Neptunium isotopes decay to Plutonium via a beta pathway.
The weak point is Pu-243 which has a half-life of 5 hours in which to capture a neutron.
So Plutonium-244 would likely be rare even in circumstances that generate it.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
