Stability of transuranic elements



 Science > Physics > Stability of transuranic elements

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Science > Physics
User: "Andrew Goldish"
Date: 05 Oct 2003 06:40:21 AM
Object: Stability of transuranic elements
Hi. I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but here goes.
I remember hearing somewhere that people were trying to produce those
transuranic elements because they figured there was relatively stable area
around Z=118 or 120 or something like that -- stable enough so that people
might actually able to make use of those elements. (As it turned out, those
elements still were quite unstable if I recall correctly -- just less
unstable than the other ones).
I'm starting to question whether any of those elements could be stable at
all. At best, you'd have elements with half-lives of a few million years
(like the first few transuranic elements). Why? Just think of the quote by
the scientist who asked about the existence of alien life:
"Where are they?"
If those elements were stable, they probably would still be around today.
You would be able to simply pick them up off the ground (like uranium). The
only way that they could be stable and not be around today would be if they
were never created in the first place. But if the supernova explosions that
produced elements more complex than iron were able to produce elements from
Z=26 to Z=92 without any problems, there's no reason to believe that they
never tried synthesizing elements heavier than uranium. So those elements
must have been produced along with uranium, which means we should still have
them around today.
What is wrong with my reasoning?
Thanks in advance,
ACG
.

User: "Richard Henry"

Title: Re: Stability of transuranic elements 05 Oct 2003 10:21:48 AM
"Andrew Goldish" <acgoldis@theworld.com> wrote in message
news:blovv7$ifo$1@pcls4.std.com...

Hi. I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but here

goes.


I remember hearing somewhere that people were trying to produce those
transuranic elements because they figured there was relatively stable area
around Z=118 or 120 or something like that -- stable enough so that people
might actually able to make use of those elements. (As it turned out,

those

elements still were quite unstable if I recall correctly -- just less
unstable than the other ones).

I'm starting to question whether any of those elements could be stable

at

all. At best, you'd have elements with half-lives of a few million years
(like the first few transuranic elements). Why? Just think of the quote

by

the scientist who asked about the existence of alien life:

"Where are they?"

If those elements were stable, they probably would still be around

today.

You would be able to simply pick them up off the ground (like uranium).

The

only way that they could be stable and not be around today would be if

they

were never created in the first place. But if the supernova explosions

that

produced elements more complex than iron were able to produce elements

from

Z=26 to Z=92 without any problems, there's no reason to believe that they
never tried synthesizing elements heavier than uranium. So those elements
must have been produced along with uranium, which means we should still

have

them around today.

What is wrong with my reasoning?

Where are the plutonium mines?
.

User: "Prai Jei"

Title: Re: Stability of transuranic elements 05 Oct 2003 01:25:28 PM
"Andrew Goldish" <acgoldis@theworld.com> wrote in message
news:blovv7$ifo$1@pcls4.std.com...

I'm starting to question whether any of those elements could be stable

at

all. At best, you'd have elements with half-lives of a few million years
(like the first few transuranic elements). Why? Just think of the quote

by

the scientist who asked about the existence of alien life:

"Where are they?"

If those elements were stable, they probably would still be around

today.

You would be able to simply pick them up off the ground (like uranium).

You need gigayear halflives for radioactive elements to be in existence
naturally. That's why uranium and thorium (along with potassium-40,
vanadium-50 and a few others) are available "raw" while plutonium and other
transuranics have to be manufactured.
.

User: "Uncle Al"

Title: Re: Stability of transuranic elements 05 Oct 2003 01:22:40 PM
Andrew Goldish wrote:


Hi. I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but here goes.

I remember hearing somewhere that people were trying to produce those
transuranic elements because they figured there was relatively stable area
around Z=118 or 120 or something like that -- stable enough so that people
might actually able to make use of those elements. (As it turned out, those
elements still were quite unstable if I recall correctly -- just less
unstable than the other ones).

I'm starting to question whether any of those elements could be stable at
all. At best, you'd have elements with half-lives of a few million years
(like the first few transuranic elements). Why? Just think of the quote by
the scientist who asked about the existence of alien life:

"Where are they?"

[snip]
Google
"island of stability" superheavy 414 hits
"island of stability" transuranic 83 hits
"island of stability" elements 1310 hits
"Stable" in this context means half-lives of hours to to centuries as
opposed to millseconds for adjancet superheavy element isotopes off
the island.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.


  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER