Talk:Copernicium

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)

In NewScientist 21 April 2012, there is an article (p. 12) called 'A factory for elements that barely exist', by Kat Austen. In part, the article notes that, 'Copernicium...is more volatile than its homologue mercury, and is the only metal known to be a gas at room temperature'. Apparently this is a 'deduction' based on how far atoms of 112 travelled across a gold surface, so saying 'known' is hyperbole. An engaging conclusion, in any event. Sandbh (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I updated the article from NewScientist that this element is a gas, but I learned from MaterialScientist who reverted back that popular magazine can't be used for proof. I'm curious if copernicium is actually a liquid or gas or perhaps even solid, and what its melting point and boiling point. When will these phase transition points be predicted? Could it be within seven years, fourteen years, 28 years, or 56 years? The other element similar to this is flerovium, whose melting and boiling points were already predicted, but why not copernicium too. PlanetStar 18:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, now we have experimental data for the boiling points of copernicium and flerovium (admittedly they're calculated based on empirically determined sublimation enthalpies), so we know that Fl is almost certainly gaseous at STP, and Cn probably also is (but those error bars are disappointing). Double sharp (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, looks like Cn and Fl are probably both liquids, something like mercury (although also with similarities to radon). Double sharp (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Data inconsistencies

The introduction to the main article says Cn-283a has a half life of about 4 mins, whereas the info box lists 4 s. Also, the info box and the data on the page Isotopes of Copernicium are wildly inconsistent. I do not know where any of this is sourced, so will not attempt to change anything myself.

121.73.128.173 (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I keep noticing this as well for Cn-283. There is a source for the 4 seconds one but I have also seen other non-Wikipedia websites on the internet claiming 4 or sometimes 5 minutes. Dayshade (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I find the best explanation here (sorry if you can't read the full article). Basically it says that there were two groups of experiments, early ones assigned a long lifetime of 3-5 min to Cn-283, later ones (from Dubna) measured 4 s, and this nature article reproduces the 4 s, but not the 3-5 min results. This value is further supported by BNL. PS. After I wrote this, I've read the section "Hot fusion" in the article, and it already reflects the controversy. Materialscientist (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article doesn't say "3-5 min" but 5 minutes (in the Hot Fusion section) resp. 7.0 min (in the infobox). (And your source says just "3 min", doesn't it?) This should be fixed; also I think that claim is not reliable enough to be stated in the infobox at all.

There's a similar problem with Cn-285b, which is claimed to have 8.9 min half-life in the infobox, while the article claims it has 10 min half-life...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

112Cn Copernicium is an even proton number atom. So the constituent isotopes are either EE's or EO's. And it is a reasonable argument to suggest that the least unstable isotope of the element should be an EE. And in areas of instability it is worth noting that an instability condition involving a superabundance of extra neutrons usually involve the alpha condition decay

tendency down through lower numbers of extra neutrons to a point where the atomic nucleus achieves a more semi-stable condition that is still subject to the occurrence of a nuclear fission occurrence, due to some kind of dynamic force unbalance within the nucleus. And it is also noted that the EE isotopes should be more balanced than the EO's. With regard to the element 112Cn, this would occur in the case of even A number isotopes. With regard to the permissible number of extra isotopes for a condition of least instablility value should logically be an even number, and with regard to the isotope 112Cn285, the calculated number of extra neutrons is 285 - 2x112 = 61.WFPM (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It is also worthy of note that the article shows the creation of EO112Cn277 to be the result of the "cold" fusion of the two isotopes: EE82Pb208, with 82 deuterons plus 44 extra neutrons with EEZn70, With 30 deuterons plus 10 extra neutrons, which combined into a composite nucleus of what would be EE112Cn278 with 112 deuterons plus 54 extra neutrons, but which then emitted 1 of the extra neutrons to become EO112Cn277 with 112 deuterons plus 53 extra neutrons.WFPM (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with EE superheavy nuclides is that they tend to have a very small barrier to spontaneous fission. Adding an odd proton or neutron makes SF less likely and lengthens the half-life substantially. Double sharp (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent articles from Hofmann et al. indicate that the purported isomeric state of ²⁸³Cn may have its explanation in EC from this nuclide producing ²⁸³Rg, whose longevity would fit well with the trend across Rg isotopes. Similarly, the ²⁸⁵Cn isomer may not be the daughter of ²⁸⁹Fl as originally assigned, but that of ²⁹⁰Fl, since the original Dubna experiments used a low beam energy, making the 2n channel ²⁴⁴Pu(⁴⁸Ca,2n)²⁹⁰Fl feasible as it was in the reactions ²⁴⁵Cm(⁴⁸Ca,2n)²⁹¹Lv and ²⁴³Am(⁴⁸Ca,2n)²⁸⁹Lv. A corroborating experiment at RIKEN in 2016 has detected what could reasonably be ²⁹⁴Lv similarly in the ²⁴⁸Cm(⁴⁸Ca,2n)²⁹⁴Lv reaction, decaying to spontaneously fissioning ²⁸⁶Cn. The long half-lives observed in the Dubna experiment may be due to a long-predicted EC branching of ²⁹⁰Fl; then the supposed copernicium isomer would really be ²⁸⁶Rg. The termination of the chain at long-lived ²⁷⁸Bh is close to where the beta-stability line ought to be in this region and is in the N ~ 170 region of low stability stranded between the N = 162 and N = 184 closed shells. But all this is speculation, albeit published speculation, without more repeats of these experiments aimed to reach the 2n channels and measure EC branching, the latter of which would be very useful for the ²⁴⁹Bk(⁴⁸Ca,2n)²⁹⁵Ts reaction. Double sharp (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Copernicium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707001918/http://lch.web.psi.ch/files/anrep01/B-02heavies.pdf to http://lch.web.psi.ch/files/anrep01/B-02heavies.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Copernicium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090718113516/http://www.gsi.de/portrait/Pressemeldungen/14072009_e.html to http://www.gsi.de/portrait/Pressemeldungen/14072009_e.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220090755/http://lch.web.psi.ch/files/lectures/TexasA%26M/TexasA%26M.pdf to http://lch.web.psi.ch/files/lectures/TexasA%26M/TexasA%26M.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Emperical predicted

Atomic radius is listed as empirical: 147 pm (predicted). What does that mean? --Klausok (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It's automatic text from the template; at the most it might mean that it's on the same scale as the empirically determined atomic radii given in the atomic radius article, not the predicted ones, but I think that it's too confusing even if it means that. DePiep, is there a way to remove this text when the atomic radius is predicted? Double sharp (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

|atomic radius calculated= already is available :-) . See {{Infobox copernicium}} edit I just made. One can leve out the "(predicted)" comment, we could aslo change the template text "calculated". -DePiep (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Half-Life

There are 2 charts about half-life. But, there are some numbers that are different. ex)284Cn 98=> 284Cn 97(ms)/ 285Cn 28=> 285Cn 29 (s) So, I want to be sure that these are from fine citations, and change it into a better form. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Why is Copernicium a post transition metal?

What facts do we know about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

See Copernicium#Experimental atomic gas phase chemistry and Post-transition metal#Group 12. Cn acts like a typical member of group 12 in its expected dominant oxidation state of II, although the higher oxidation states III and IV may be reachable with the most electronegative ligands. Double sharp (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Then why aren't the elements before it considered transition metals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

They almost certainly are, but scientists haven't done the experiments to prove it yet. Double sharp (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be easy to seeing how Cn is a post transition metal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

See Meitnerium#Experimental chemistry, Darmstadtium#Experimental chemistry, and Roentgenium#Experimental chemistry for a discussion of the obstacles facing the radiochemist trying to work with Mt, Ds, and Rg. For Mt and Ds there is also the problem that gas-phase 6d chemistry relies on there being volatile compounds of the element, and there should be few such compounds (hexafluorides seem to be the best bet). Double sharp (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"Should be" is confusing because it doesn't give me facts about if it is true, what they are. Porygon-Z 15:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

As I said, "hexafluorides seem to be the best bet". Since the 6d metals are expected to be quite good congeners of the 5d metals, extrapolating from known volatile compounds of Ir, Pt, and Au should give some more possibilities, even if that is OR. You'll need to use compounds with only one metal atom, because you can't make more than one at once with fusion-evaporation reactions. Double sharp (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so there are compounds of it, right? Us non-scientist nerds need it simplified but i understand some of it. Porygon-Z 12:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

We have synthesised Cn compounds, yes. We haven't yet synthesised Mt, Ds, and Rg compounds, but we have a fair idea what might be possible. Double sharp (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Why don't you list them in the article? Porygon-Z 20:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

Because they already are in all those articles, in particular in the sections about experimental and predicted chemistry of these elements. Double sharp (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

When it says "should be" does that mean it IS? Porygon-Z 03:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

No, it means that it is theoretically expected, but has not yet been experimentally confirmed. Double sharp (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The article uses "should be" way too much. Any facts? Porygon-Z 04:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This is unfortunately rather a necessity, given that we are discussing predicted properties of Cn; the article separates predicted and experimental chemistry into two different sections. Very little is actually known at the moment because of the short half-life of Cn and the minuscule quantities that we can produce (this is one-atom-at-a-time chemistry). Progress will probably happen, but slowly. Double sharp (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Then if we don't know much about Cn, what makes it a post-Transition metal? Porygon-Z 16:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

Because one thing we do know about it experimentally is that it behaves like its lighter group 12 congeners; like them, Cn readily forms a selenide, and it continues the trend of increasing volatility down group 12 from Zn to Hg quite well. Double sharp (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, finally some data we can work with! But how do they create compounds with Cn if it's half-life is under 5 seconds? Porygon-Z 14:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

(Sorry, I missed this comment when you first wrote it.) Chemical reactions can happen very quickly and 5 seconds can easily be more than enough time. Double sharp (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It's OK but what about the elements whose half life is under 5 seconds? How can you get compounds from those? Porygon-Z 13:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

Currently, we cannot chemically investigate nuclides whose half-lives are significantly less than a second. This means that the last three known elements (Lv, Ts, and Og) are currently inaccessible to the chemist, although this could change if methods improve or if longer-lived isotopes are found. Double sharp (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

That would mean that we can study Cn. But why haven't we had a compound of it yet since we can study it and all?Porygon-Z 17:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

We do; CnSe (copernicium selenide) has been synthesised, as the article mentions. Double sharp (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

OK So Im just assuming here that the group 12 elements also form a selenide as well? And the article mentions that they attempted to not produced. I would say "In 2015 Scientists attempted and succeeded in synthesizing the first compound of Cn being the selenide, CnSe." Porygon-Z 13:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they all do. Since the article follows up by saying "Reaction of copernicium atoms with trigonal selenium to form a selenide was [sic, was incorrectly 'were'] observed", I think it's pretty clear that CnSe was in fact synthesised. However, I have removed the words "attempted to" for claritry. Double sharp (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks much better now, thank you. I meant to ask, what is the last element to have a compound? Is it Cn? Porygon-Z 15:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Chemical studies of Nh may have produced NhOH (see Nihonium#Experimental chemistry), but that was not the intention of the experiment and unambiguous identification of the chemical species involved was not achieved. Fl has been chemically investigated (and is the last element to have been), but no compounds of it are known yet. However, studies similar to those on Cn, aiming at producing FlSe, have been planned since at least 2014. Double sharp (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

So Cn is the last element but there are some elements they do want to form compounds with, right? How do they form compounds like CnSe, with all that radioactivity(Providing some special suits or something)? Porygon-Z 16:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The radiation from a small number of copernicium atoms is completely negligible; shielding is needed for handling the radioactive targets, though. The detectors were covered with selenium that the produced copernicium atoms could react with. I imagine the eventual goal is to chemically investigate all the elements, but it may be a while before that can happen. Double sharp (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh so it wouldn't do much to me ,right? And on another note, is Es the last element to have a use, or is the YbFm bowl considered a use?Porygon-Z 14:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

One atom at a time is very unlikely to do any significant damage. If you mean the Fm–Yb alloy pictured at File:Fermium-Ytterbium Alloy.jpg (which is on the Fm article), I would not consider that a use because it was made to measure some properties of Fm metal, so it is more along the lines of basic research. That is quite a difference from ²⁵⁴Es having been used, in the Es article's words, "as the calibration marker in the chemical analysis spectrometer...of the Surveyor 5 lunar probe". Double sharp (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

But its a use because its used to study Fm itself and its an alloy, which is a use. So is Fm the last element to have a use? Porygon-Z 18:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

If we consider basic research on the element to be a use, then every element would have a use, all the way up to Og, which seems not to tally with what most people would think of as a use. Double sharp (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

THen What counts as a use? If Fm atoms are in a Yb bowl to use as handling Fm metal, I'd say that's a use, right?Porygon-Z 17:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

Well, now we have an alternative explanation for the strong interaction of Cn atoms with the Au surface (large dispersion forces), so even that experiment seems to be not so conclusive after all. Maybe we should go back and uncolour everything after hassium... Double sharp (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought so. Copernicium seemed to far from being a transition metal. I was wondering how Cn was a transition element and Hs wasn't, right? UB Blacephalon (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Was synthesis of Cn from Hofmann in 1996 the result of a cold fusion?

According to Balantekin and Takigawa in their article/review "Quantum tunneling in nuclear fusion" (year 1997 and page 33), Hofmann produced the element Z=112 by a "so called cold fusion method using Zn+Pb reaction". I also just read here on this wiki article that "hot fusion" is used exclusively to qualify only the russian synthesis experiment and no other. Since Balantekin and Takigawa implicitely refer to a fudion allowed by quantum tunneling at energies classicaly too low for fuzion to occur, my question is: How "cold" was this fusion of Cn / At what temperature and pressure did it occur, roughly? They talk about a "SHIP velocity filter" at the "GSI" and hete is a link to their own webpage where they use the term "cold fusion" themselves: https://www.gsi.de/work/forschung/nustarenna/nustarenna_divisions/she_physik/experimental_setup/ship It seems the Pb is actively cooled so it stays solid (!). Pb becomes liquid at ~600K / 327°C / 621°F so... if I understand correctly, this is indeed well under the "hot fusion" range. Can anyone confirm? Should it be mentionned in this wiki article? And/or reffered to / linked to on tbe range. Can anyone confirm? Should the term "cold fusion" be mentionned in this wiki article? And/or should this wiki article be reffered to / linked to on the wiki article named "Cold fusion", for example in its "See also" section? 77.205.22.120 (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)