Talk:Roentgenium

Template:Chemical Element

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. Elementbox converted 10:56, 15 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 12:59, 24 June 2005).

Redirect: Roentgenium

Number "111" and symbol "Uuu" ? That's just too fun, hope it stays this way ;-) --FvdP

It didnt... :( --67.81.20.56 23:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its symbol was Uuu because it was number 111. Each "un" in Unununium represents a 1, and since there are three "un"s, the name really means "element 111". The symbol, based off the name, was then Uuu. ;) timrem 22:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What year...

...do you think this element will get an official name?? My estimate is 2010. 66.32.142.216 00:01, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

True or false??

True or false: When the Roentgenium name becomes official sometime in the near future, the chemical symbol will be Ro. 66.245.2.190 16:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

False. The proposed symbol is Rg. Eric119 20:04, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

The name Roentgenium is now official: http://www.iupac.org/news/archives/2004/naming111.html andy 11:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Updating articles in that respect -- Chris 73 Talk 13:10, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmmm. The pic in the table still needs updating. Eric119 06:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Added a request for a new image to User talk:Maveric149, who made the image in the first place. -- Chris 73 Talk 10:07, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I edited the image myself. Behold the power of GIMP. :-) --timc | Talk 17:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Isotopes and half-livss?

So, is there one isotope, or three? Is the half-life 15 milliseconds, or 3.5 seconds, or 17 microseconds, or what? And if only three atoms of it were creqated, can we really talk about a half-life properly? DS 13:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again isotopes

According to the article, there are three isotopes known, but the article earlier says that all atoms synthesized were Rg-272. What is the correct information? Eric119 06:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Color

Like how can it be confirmed to be colored like gold? Webelements doesn't claim that, they claim it to be silvery or gray in appearence. Andros 1337 23:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the article is that it is a prediction that, should enough of it ever be brought together, it would look something like gold...no one's actually seen it, so no web site could claim any color as confirmed. 208.23.142.201 19:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um...

"It is unlikely that Roentgenium will be used to make coins." Is it really neccesary to point this out? yes is it?

I think this is kind of stupid too...Antagonist 05:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds like a consensus, or close enough for now. I've taken it out. For the record, the text was:

==Trivia==

The elements in Group 11 used to informally be called the coinage metals, due to their historical use in coins. It is unlikely that roentgenium can be used to make coins since all of its isotopes are radioactive with very short half-lives, and nothing has been invented to hold atoms together.

This kind of is covered by Wikipedia:Trivia (or the other policies and guidelines about what is encyclopedic, take your pick). Kingdon 06:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roentgenium's Information

Can Roentgenium have a boiling point,m.p., etc. at the appointed year it will be renamed?-- Tawana howard Age15

Uuu...

Come on! What in the world is wrong with the name Unununium. Whats with this dumb Roetgenium rubish.

Remember... You can be happy in a Geo-Mag world!

Unununium is a pretty fine name, but it should be perfect if it was named unununum. This Roentgenium is hickup-provoking, and it should correctly be Röntgenium after Wilhelm Röntgen, and since there aren't ö in the chemical alphabet, Röntgenium must be invalid too. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 15:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must also pinpoint that there are X-rays in English, but neither Roentgen-rays, nor Röntgen-rays. Unununum-rays should be an alternative. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 15:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conductivity

It may be a little early to ask, but does Rg also go along with the conductivity of gold, silver and copper?
Considering silver is more conductive than copper, and gold is more conductive than silver, wouldn't Roentgenium be more conductive than gold in it's 3 second half life? 71.168.108.66 18:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC) (VentusIgnis forgot his password...)[reply]

"should be" doesn't trump WP:RS

I've removed the following comment:

This 'should' be true. Periodic trends for this group show brown-red coloring. That is why proably is stated.

and restored the ^{[citation needed]} tags. If nothing else, we need a source for explaining what the periodic trends are and how they might apply; to apply them ourselves is WP:OR. Also, there may be theoretical calculations, or even in some cases experimental data, which are generally stronger arguments than those based on periodic trends (which break down in the presence of relativistic effects; see for example the paper cited in element 112 about whether element 112 is a gas. Kingdon 22:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

baptism

"The official baptism took place. . ."

Is that a joke? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering about that for a while. I didn't see anything about it at de:Roentgenium. I guess if no one shows up with a source we can always just remove it. It could be a joke or hoax. But my first guess was that there was some kind of naming ceremony, celebration, whatever on Friday November 17, 2006. I don't know how easy this would be to track down, and whether it is worth trying. Kingdon 01:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is not a joke, I was there. See [1]. But my German isn't good enough to write it there. I don't have an account on all versions of Wikipedia. bilbo pingouin 01:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]