Copernicium

From: ANT_THOMAS16 Jul 2009 23:40
To: ALL1 of 15

Pointless rant, but a rant nontheless.

 

The newly named element 112 - Copernicium (Cp).

 

I have no issue with properly naming a new element. I have no issue with naming it after a scientiest of the past (Nicolaus Copernicus). What I do have an issue with is the fact it's going to have an official abbreviation (Cp) that is already widely used in Chemistry.

 

Cp is used to represent cyclopentadienyl, a widely used compound. I don't think the use of Cp is official in IUPACs eyes but everyone uses it. Similar to using Me for Methyl and Bu for Butyl. It seems even more odd since Cp is generally used to bond to metals for various reasons, so if someone in the future happened to assume it was actually copernicium then there would be massive confusion.

 

Anyway, pointless rant over.

From: 99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)17 Jul 2009 09:17
To: ANT_THOMAS 2 of 15

There would also likely be a massive explosion, Cp (the element) is not very stable, is it? Realistically, is it going to cause that much confusion? ARe people going to be confused as to whether you're using Cp, a widely used and well-known compound, or Cp, a totally unstable and esoteric element that only a few people have seen vague evidence of?

 

:Y

From: Radio17 Jul 2009 11:48
To: ANT_THOMAS 3 of 15
If it causes confusion, (unlikely as so far its only been shown to exist for a very brief period) then it could always be changed. Mendelevium used to be Mv and is now Md (if I remember correctly!)
From: ANT_THOMAS17 Jul 2009 12:14
To: ALL4 of 15
I agree with both of you, it probably won't cause any confusion at all. But it still annoyed me!
From: Wayne (SCOREZ2000)20 Jul 2009 13:11
To: ANT_THOMAS 5 of 15
What is it? Ecto plasm?
From: Radio20 Jul 2009 15:03
To: Wayne (SCOREZ2000) 6 of 15

Its the largest element currently known.
Until its officialy named, I think its still ununpentium (i.e. 115, its number in the periodic table)

 

As such a large element, its very very unstable and as far a I know, hasn't existed for more than a few fractions of a second, and even then that's only under laboratory conditions.

From: Wayne (SCOREZ2000)20 Jul 2009 15:14
To: Radio 7 of 15
Is it icky?
From: ANT_THOMAS20 Jul 2009 15:14
To: Radio 8 of 15
It's 112, ununbium.
From: 99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)20 Jul 2009 15:17
To: ANT_THOMAS 9 of 15
Copernicum is 112, but hasn't 115 now been identified (to be confirmed)?
From: Radio20 Jul 2009 15:18
To: ANT_THOMAS 10 of 15

Is that all? I thought they would have got further than that by now!

 

Wayne, dunno if its icky, but its so radioactive that if it was available in any sort of quantity it'd probably have a nice green glow.

From: Mouse20 Jul 2009 15:28
To: Radio 11 of 15
Does it taste of peas?
From: Radio20 Jul 2009 15:52
To: Mouse 12 of 15
Dunno - go taste some and let me know.
From: Manthorp20 Jul 2009 16:02
To: Radio 13 of 15
quote:
As such a large element, its very very unstable and as far a I know, hasn't existed for more than a few fractions of a second, and even then that's only under laboratory conditions.


On the contrary, I have an amusingly designed cocktail stick dispenser made of it, a souvenir of Rhyll, in my weird shit draw. The cocktail sticks keep falling out, which I had put down to poor design, but I'm wondering now whether it might be a consequence of atomic instability.
From: JonCooper20 Jul 2009 20:41
To: ALL14 of 15
Copernicium does not have enough Os in it
From: ANT_THOMAS18 Apr 2011 16:28
To: ALL15 of 15

I've got my spade out.

 

Turns out IUPAC decided Cp was a bad symbol for it, one of the reasons being the reason I gave in post 1, so they've gone for Cn instead. I'm much happier about the whole issue now.