December 22, 2024, 09:27:30 PM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: Making superheavier elements  (Read 8325 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gippgig

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 139
  • Mole Snacks: +8/-2
Making superheavier elements
« on: October 19, 2008, 01:22:09 PM »
A good article was just published evaluating possible ways to make new elements (Physical Review C 78 034610). The conclusion is that making 117 by the 249Bk(48Ca,3-4n) reaction is easy, reaching 120 is possible, and a factor of ten improvement in equipment might reach 124. Compare with the other article I mentioned in the previous entry that predicted a steep drop in cross sections around 119!

Offline Dan1195

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
  • Mole Snacks: +2/-0
Re: Making superheavier elements
« Reply #1 on: October 24, 2008, 02:59:34 PM »
Clearly improved equipment and detection capability, combined with fine tuning the reactions, will the important in producing new elements, but also producing higher quantities of already known isotopes. Good progress within the past few years in regards to the latter has been made, particularly with neutron deficient Sg & Bh isotopes. With hundreds to thousands of decays observed, the small EC/SF branches of these isotopes have been detected.


Also in Phys. Rev. C This month was a discussion on producing neutron deficient actinides, an area of the nuclear chart with very poor data, especially from Pu-Cf. There was also a announcement of the producton of 241Fm at GSI (and a questioning of the 800 us half-life of 242Fm), Though I have yet to see the actual paper here.

Offline gippgig

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 139
  • Mole Snacks: +8/-2
Re: Making superheavier elements
« Reply #2 on: October 24, 2008, 04:59:10 PM »
The paper on making 241Fm at GSI is in (or will be in) The European Physical Journal A ("DOI 10.1140/epja/i2008-10608-4").
There is also a definite need to make improved targets such as 210Pb, 250Cm (I've mentioned this one before & will continue to do so until someone takes it seriously), & 254Es (the old LEAP plan). Note that the Pb & Cm targets have long lives so once made they could be used over & over again.

Offline Mitch

  • General Chemist
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5298
  • Mole Snacks: +376/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • "I bring you peace." -Mr. Burns
    • Chemistry Blog
Re: Making superheavier elements
« Reply #3 on: October 24, 2008, 11:55:52 PM »
Getting EH&S to approve anything more active than nat U is a hassle. We recently got approval to use 242Pu as targets and ran it with a Mg beam.
Most Common Suggestions I Make on the Forums.
1. Start by writing a balanced chemical equation.
2. Don't confuse thermodynamic stability with chemical reactivity.
3. Forum Supports LaTex

Offline Dan1195

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
  • Mole Snacks: +2/-0
Re: Making superheavier elements
« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2008, 07:00:57 PM »
The data on 241-244Fm was finally put into the XUNDL database and have a couple observations:

1. The 0.8 ms half-life observed previously was likely 241Fm

2. The SF half-life of 242Fm is likely between 500 ns-1 us, which is of course too short for for the detection system. I base this prediction on the decline of SF half-lives in adjacent Even-Odd Fm nuclei (241Fm and  243FM (9% SF branch)). The relation of SF half-lives Even-Odd and Even-Even Rf isotopes is also a helpful guide here. Both 253Rf and 255Rf have SF half-lives longer by a factor of 1,000 compared to 254Rf and 256Rf.

Fm-241 = 730 us
Fm-242 = ???
Fm-243 = 2.6 s
Fm-244 = 3.12 ms

Rf-253 = 11 ms     
Rf-254 = 23 us
Rf-255 = 3.2 s
Rf-256 = 6.4 ms

3. The non-observance of an alpha branch in 244Fm. Based on systematics the percent alpha is likely close to 1% or just beyond the limit of the sensitivity of the experiment. (The alpha half-life of 246Fm is 1.2 s),

Sponsored Links