Talk:Copernicium

For a November 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ununbium

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. Elementbox converted 11:01, 15 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 19:59, 9 June 2005).

Whose opinion is it...

...that this element is a liquid as opposed to a solid?? Feel free to give any external links available. 66.245.98.219 23:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea how anyone could confirm its liquid state when so few atoms have been produced, but more importantly, why is this article being considered for deletion? AFAIK, this element hasn't yet been given a name, and so the "ununbium" article should remain. User:Heian-794 01:00, 1 Dec 2004

Probably Uub is a liquid. Look the elements in the group 12:

Element	Melting point	Boiling point
Zinc	419´5 ºC	907 ºC
Cadmium	321 ºC	767 ºC
Mercury	-38´8 ºC	356´73 ºC

So, Uub may has a melting point less than -40 ºC and a boiling point less than 300 ºC--Daniel bg 11:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or this element could be a solid at room temperature or a liquid with a higher melting point than mercury, just like in boron family, the trends in melting point decreases down the group until it reaches gallium, and then the melting point increases after gallium, but their boiling points decrease continuously down the group from boron through thallium. So the boiling point may be even lower than or higher than mercury, but I'll say it is likely to be lower. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name

I hereby a name helmholtzium (Hh) after Hermann von Helmholtz is a proposed name. I found that two proposed names in this wikipedia article is gone. The former name was istrium (Is) in honor of Istria. Cosmium 20:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, when should the element get an official permanent name?? Georgia guy 20:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first is not a sentence. Where are your sources? -lysdexia 08:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing the commenter's first language might not be English, so why make a point of grammar? It's understandable. However, to the issue of sources... I believe helmholtzium is more due not just to Professor Helmholtz, but the consortium that GSI is part of: similar to the naming of dubnium. The other name bouncing around, wixhausium was one of their names they originally considered for darmstadtium. This is because GSI is located in Wixhausen specifically, which is a short distance from Darmstadt. I've never seen istrium around: that would be peculiar, because so far, GSI's gone with naming their discoveries after German scientists Lise Meitner, William Röntgen, the state they're in, Hesse, and the metropolitan area, Darmstadt. There's a certain logic to wixhausium and helmholtzium... ---Sturmde 03:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the list of so-called "proposed names" since none of them was referenced. --Röentgenium111 (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Röentgenium111, I would like to say that you helped me answer a question: what the heck happened to the list of proposed names. However, I do remember one name on the list that I agree with: venusium (Vs). It was because Mercury is the first planet in our solar system, so venusium was proposed to be right beneath mercury. I am quite for the name of venusium, for I am interested in pretty much all areas of science other than biology (genetics I also like). Also, venusium sounds nice (though venium would sound nicer). I don't think you should be removing the list. They soon may be referenced again. Therefore, I would like as many people as possible to try and remember what were on the list and then rebuild the list. No offense, Röentgenium111. 75.104.128.56 (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Millard P.S.[reply]

Please read WP: Crystal ball. Unreferenced claims do not belong to Wikipedia. Even less if you just invented them. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm proposing a name 'helmholtzium' (Hh), after Hermann von Helmholtz. I'm hoping that IUPAC will decide the name for this element in 2009. So will never know what will the actual name be, perhaps either venusium or helmholtzium. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 19:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Röentgenium111, I would like to say that it really was on the list, and I did not invent the possible name (nor did I invent ununbiium itself, thanks for asking). Oh, and for element 113, I believe bercerquelium (Bq) was on the list for Henri Bercerquel, the discoverer of radioactivity. Let me guess, Röentgenium111. You deleted that too because you don't think there were references.

Please be patient. Georgia guy (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A gas

How did you changed that ununbium is a gas, but not as the liquid. Following periodic trend with mercury it would have boiling point lower than that of mercury. I guessed the boiling point of 150°C and melting point −100°C. Cosmium 22:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably too early to really say, but there is a paper cited in the article titled "Indication for a gaseous element 112" which is based on experimental data, not periodic trends (or even theoretical calculations). It is a good paper and relatively readable (it also briefly discusses why periodic trends are not necessarily going to hold up for the superheavy elements. I can't claim to be an expert but it has something to do with relativistic effects). Kingdon 23:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

final decay product?

I clipped this out of the note on the confirmation of May 2006:

(identified as a final product of an elemental decay series)

how could an isotope such as this be anywhere near the end of a decay series? Potatoswatter 04:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a heavy enough element: ununoctium to ununhexium to ununbium. --Vuo 08:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you! Still not sure what "final" means in this context… guess that's for me to look up tho. Potatoswatter 09:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the ununoctium article, it means it's the final beta-decay product. As it undergoes fission after this... wouldn't that mean it's at the end of a beta-decay series, as it is not itself stable? 60.226.133.172 11:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "beta" does not appear in ununoctium. We've sorted it out, thank you :v) . Potatoswatter 17:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9111456

Mercury analog?

This weeks issue of Nature gives us an interesting article in which is decribed that 112 forms almalgams with gold like mercury. Something for the article? (Ref Eichler et al - Chemical characterization of element 112 - Nature 447, 72-75 (3 May 2007) 217.122.83.79 09:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gas or Liquid?

The wikipedia periodic table labels Ununbium as a liquid, not a gas, unlike stated in this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.228.65 (talk • contribs)

I'd be most comfortable with "unknown" given the sketchy nature of the data so far (at least, the data which is cited in the Ununbium article - I don't know if we have found everything relevant). Kingdon 01:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]