Christians Muslims Atheists. Who really is growing faster?

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:04 pm

Those that can be found on Earth now are artificially generated synthetic elements, via nuclear reactors or particle accelerators.

Those that can be found on Earth Now.

Tebo · Post by **Tebo** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:09 pm

Uranium ores contain roughly 10^11 times less plutonium than uranium, similar numbers apply for neptunium. The numbers vary, because transuranics are only produced when uranium atoms absorb neutrons not directly through radioactive decay. The number of available neutrons depends on the ore. Neutrons can be produced from alpha particles hitting other atoms and spontaneous fission of uranium. Anyway, these are trace amounts one has to go looking for to find.

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:59 pm

This is obviously not a new discovery, as it's all over wikipedia and the internet, it is just unadvertised.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:24 pm

flip wrote:This is obviously not a new discovery, as it's all over wikipedia and the internet, it is just unadvertised.

That neptunium can't occur naturally, even tho it's Wikipedia article says otherwise?

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:46 pm

Those that can be found on Earth now are artificially generated synthetic elements, via nuclear reactors or particle accelerators.

Man what part about Earth do you not understand? If you find neptunium or plutonium anywhere on the Earth it has been generated via nuclear reactors or particle accelerators. Education is great. They give you all the information and the math, but it's still up to you to put 2 and 2 together.

Atomic Number: 93
Atomic Weight: 237
Melting Point: 917 K (644°C or 1191°F)
Boiling Point: 4175 K (3902°C or 7056°F)
Density: 20.25 grams per cubic centimeter
Phase at Room Temperature: Solid
Element Classification: Metal
Period Number: 7 Group Number: none Group Name: Actinide
Radioactive and Artificially Produced
Named after the planet Neptune.
Pronounciation? Neptunium is pronounced as nep-TOO-ni-em.
Estimated Crustal Abundance: Not Applicable
Estimated Oceanic Abundance: Not Applicable
Number of Stable Isotopes: 0
Ionization Energy: 6.266 eV
Oxidation States: +6, +5, +4, +3

Date of Discovery: 1940
Discoverer: E.M. McMillan
Name Origin: After the planet Neptune
Uses: No uses known
Obtained From: Man-made

The transuranium elements have atomic numbers higher than uranium (#92). Twenty of these elements have been discovered; all are unstable with half-lives (time needed for half the sample to decay) ranging millions of years to mere fractions of a second. Two of the twenty have been found in nature (neptunium and plutonium) but only in trace amounts. Transuranium elements are produced artificially by bombarding heavy atoms either with neutrons produced in nuclear reactors or with charged particles accelerated to high energy.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:00 pm

flip wrote:Man what part about Earth do you not understand? If you find neptunium or plutonium anywhere on the Earth it has been generated via nuclear reactors or particle accelerators. Education is great. They give you all the information and the math, but it's still up to you to put 2 and 2 together.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... ptunium-Np

neptunium (Np), radioactive chemical element of the actinoid series of the periodic table, first transuranium element to be artificially produced, atomic number 93. Though traces of neptunium have subsequently been found in nature, where it is not primeval but produced by neutron-induced transmutation reactions in uranium ores

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:08 pm

where it is not primeval but produced by neutron-induced transmutation reactions in uranium ores

Adv. 1. subsequently - happening at a time subsequent to a reference time; "he apologized subsequently"; "he's going to the store but he'll be back here later"; "it didn't happen until afterward"; "two hours after that"

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:19 pm

There is a mechanism by which these elements are migrating on an atomic scale.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:15 pm

flip wrote:
where it is not primeval but produced by neutron-induced transmutation reactions in uranium ores
Adv. 1. subsequently - happening at a time subsequent to a reference time; "he apologized subsequently"; "he's going to the store but he'll be back here later"; "it didn't happen until afterward"; "two hours after that"

funny thing, we never said the neptunium was there for a long time. the neptunium produced by the reactions from the definition that ferno posted only lasts for an hour or so...

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:28 pm

A preponderance of evidence suggest it was never there before 1940.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:45 pm

flip wrote:A preponderance of evidence suggest it was never there before 1940.

Which doesn't prevent it from occurring naturally. Radon has a half life of 3.8 days, which means no radon from 1940 is extant either, but that's not produced in a lab.

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:48 pm

Those that can be found on Earth now are artificially generated synthetic elements, via nuclear reactors or particle accelerators.

You will not find any neptunium occurring naturally at present.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:16 pm

Remember, you posted this:

flip wrote: The transuranium elements have atomic numbers higher than uranium (#92). Twenty of these elements have been discovered; all are unstable with half-lives (time needed for half the sample to decay) ranging millions of years to mere fractions of a second. Two of the twenty have been found in nature (neptunium and plutonium) but only in trace amounts. Transuranium elements are produced artificially by bombarding heavy atoms either with neutrons produced in nuclear reactors or with charged particles accelerated to high energy.

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:31 pm

Again, you just as Ferno, have reiterated my point once again.

The transuranium elements have atomic numbers higher than uranium (#92). Twenty of these elements have been discovered; all are unstable with half-lives (time needed for half the sample to decay) ranging millions of years to mere fractions of a second. Two of the twenty have been found in nature (neptunium and plutonium) but only in trace amounts. Transuranium elements are produced artificially by bombarding heavy atoms either with neutrons produced in nuclear reactors or with charged particles accelerated to high energy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGQZXA54gjU

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:41 pm

They should try to make an accelerator encased in pure gold for it's non-magnetic properties.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:42 pm

the two sentences are separate ideas; they don't contradict each other. You are the one stuck on the circular loop.

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:46 pm

No dude you are and it's laid out so simply. You are told over and over in so many ways that the only existence of neptunium that is on earth is produced artificially and that 2 of them actually migrated out into the surrounding matter. It's your conditioning that prevents you from seeing it.

vision · Post by **vision** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:48 pm

flip wrote:No dude you are and it's laid out so simply. You are told over and over in so many ways that the only existence of neptunium that is on earth is produced artificially and that 2 of them actually migrated out into the surrounding matter. It's your conditioning that prevents you from seeing it.

LOLWUT!? This is priceless. I never thought I could be so entertained by such a horribly derailed thread.

Keep. It. Going!

Burlyman · Post by **Burlyman** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:07 pm

Who do you guys think has time to read a 14-page religion warmongering thread?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:20 am

flip wrote:Again, you just as Ferno, have reiterated my point once again.

no we didn't. maybe your eyes are starting to go, so I'll help

have subsequently been found in nature.
in nature.
in nature.
in nature.
in nature

Burlyman wrote:Who do you guys think has time to read a 14-page religion warmongering thread?

oops, someone hasn't read the thread.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:35 am

Burlyman wrote:Who do you guys think has time to read a 14-page religion warmongering thread?

If you'd read even the last few posts, you'd know that it hasn't been a "religion warmongering" thread for about ten pages or so. I'm not even sure what it is now, other than flip randomly jumping from one tenuously-related concept to the next, misapplying each one.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:38 am

Sit. Stay. Good Dog

.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:09 am

Blame it on about 10 years of Ace and Target classes. We were actually taught to think things through. Every naturally occurring element that exists even to this day had already been "discovered" by 1789. For 150 years they find no signs of any other. They are looking for 150 years and actually discover how to "artificially" create it in a lab. Then they start discovering it in nature.

Beginning with neptunium (at.no. 93), the first to be discovered, in 1940, and ending with lawrencium (at.no. 103), in 1961, all transuranium elements in the actinide series were produced by American scientists.

Only 2 of the transuranium elements in the actinide series were ever "subsequently" found in nature. The ones closest to the end of "naturally" occurring elements. The fact that NONE of the other artificially created elements have been found anywhere else but in a lab even goes to support that.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 9:54 am

flip wrote:The fact that NONE of the other artificially created elements have been found anywhere else but in a lab even goes to support that.

Actually, I think that means none of these artificially made elements are regularly "leaking out" to contaminate the planet, and the two we did find likely got there through natural means.

But here's what you should do; write up a proposal and try to get some grant money for an experiment showing how radioactive elements created in the lab contaminate surroundings. You don't even need to discover the mechanism, just prove that it happens and others will join you in research. Who knows, maybe this is the beginning of a wonderful new life for you as a famous scientist!

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 9:57 am

Lol ,well ,that is how it's done and the beauty is, no one could prove me wrong

. I'm almost 100% positive it's not a new concept, just don't want the villagers trying to kill frankenstein

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:24 pm

flip wrote:Blame it on about 10 years of Ace and Target classes. We were actually taught to think things through.

"Thinking things through" is awesome, but the trouble is that your lines of thinking have been very wrong for pretty much this entire thread. Your entire thought process seems to be along the lines of, "I think things have to be this way, so therefore they must be!" Now, if you give me the choice between decades' (even centuries') worth of scientific experimentation and discovery and hard evidence that leads up to a certain conclusion on one hand, and then flip's conclusion based on a few out-of-context Wiki quotes on the other...you tell me which one I should be putting credence in.

Every naturally occurring element that exists even to this day had already been "discovered" by 1789. For 150 years they find no signs of any other. They are looking for 150 years and actually discover how to "artificially" create it in a lab. Then they start discovering it in nature.

There's an obvious reason for this: neptunium and plutonium only occur naturally in trace amounts generated under specific conditions. Pretty much every other naturally-occurring element can be found easily in bulk, whether it's in pure elemental form or as part of commonly-occurring compounds. For instance, uranium ore is very plentiful, and it's relatively easy to isolate that element, so that's why it was found by 1789. In contrast, we didn't even have the tools to detect the natural occurrence of an element like plutonium until 150 years in the future.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:37 pm

Heh, it's obvious you have no idea what your talking about.

Those that can be found on Earth now are artificially generated synthetic elements, via nuclear reactors or particle accelerators.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:40 pm

No where, not in one place does it say that neptunium is made naturally. Only that it subsequently showed up in nature.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:35 pm

I would LOVE to see the particle accelerator that can generate elements. It would be our first replicator!

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:40 pm

Americium-241 does not occur in nature; however, some americium may be found in the environment as the result of atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons

Undetected in nature, curium (as the isotope curium-242) was discovered (summer 1944) at the University of Chicago by Glenn T. Seaborg, Ralph A. James, and Albert Ghiorso in a plutonium isotope, plutonium-239, that had been bombarded by helium ions (alpha particles) in the 60-inch cyclotron at the University of California, Berkeley. It was the third transuranium element to be discovered

Berkelium was produced in an atom smasher such as this one at the University of ... Berkelium does not occur in nature.

Californium is a synthetic chemical element not found in nature.

Einsteinium does not occur naturally in the Earth's crust. Instead, it is prepared in particle accelerators by bombarding isotopes of heavy transuranium

Fermium is an artificial element, don't exist in the nature.

Mendelevium was the first element to be synthesized and discovered one atom at a time. Not occurring in nature,

Nobelium in the environment. The transferium elements do not exist in nature and they have very unstable nuclei, so they are quite hard to make and detect.

Lawrencium, a radioactive, metallic chemical element. It does not occur in nature. Lawrencium was first produced in 1961

Rutherfordium
It is a very radioactive element that does not exist in nature. It has to be made. Rutherfordium is the first transactinide element..

Dubnium does not occur in nature, and it has no isotopes that last long enough to allow significant quantities to be accumulated

.........ETC

By what stretch of logic am I supposed to think this trend applies to all transuraniums EXCEPT the first 2?

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:06 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:25 pm

What is so hard for you guys to imagine that Nuclear Explosions and Particle Accelerators have contaminated the matter on earth at an atomic level? Nobody told you that before? I give heaps of logic and observation to backup my idea. You guys got nothing

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:32 pm

In 20 or so years, just remember where you heard it first.
All this was kept secret from 1939 until 1946 and since you guys can't think for yourself and have to wait for real Scientists to tell you, you will just have to wait. I predict this will be known in the near future.

The discovery of nuclear fission in uranium, announced in 1939, allowed physicists to advance with confidence in the project of creating "trans-uranic" elements - artificial ones that would lie in the periodic table beyond uranium, the last and heaviest nucleus known in nature. The technique was simply to bombard uranium with neutrons. Some of the uranium nuclei would undergo fission, newly understood phenomenon, and split violently into two pieces. In other cases, however, a uranium-238 nucleus (atomic number 92) would quietly absorb a neutron, becoming a nucleus of uranium-239, which in turn would soon give off a beta-particle and become what is now called neptunium-239 (atomic number 93). After another beta decay it would become Element 94 (now plutonium-239)
By the end of 1940, theoretical physicists had predicted that this last substance, like uranium, would undergo fission, and therefore might be used to make a nuclear reactor or bomb. Enrico Fermi asked Emilio Segre to use the powerful new 60-inch cyclotron at the University of California at Berkeley to bombard uranium with slow neutrons and create enough plutonium-239 to test it for fission. Segre teamed up with Glenn T. Seaborg, Joseph W. Kennedy, and Arthur C. Wahl in January 1941 and set to work.
They carried out the initial bombardment on March 3-6, then, using careful chemical techniques, isolated the tiny amount (half a microgram) of plutonium generated. They put it on a platinum disc, called "Sample A," and on March 28 bombarded it with slow neutrons to test for fission. As expected, it proved to be fissionable - even more than U-235. To allow for more accurate measurements, they purified Sample A and deposited it on another platinum disc, forming the "Sample B" here preserved. Measurements taken with it were reported in a paper submitted to the Physical Review on May 29, 1941, but kept secret until 1946. (The card in the lid of the box bears notes from a couple of months later.)
After the summer of 1941, this particular sample was put away and almost forgotten, but the research that began with it took off in a big way. Crash programs for the production and purification of plutonium began at Berkeley and Chicago, reactors to make plutonium were built at Hanford, Washington, and by 1945 the Manhattan Project had designed and built a plutonium atomic bomb. The first one was tested on July 16, 1945 in the world's first nuclear explosion, and the next was used in earnest over Nagasaki. (The Hiroshima bomb used U-235.)
Why is our plutonium sample in a cigar box? G.N. Lewis, a Berkeley chemist, was a great cigar smoker, and Seaborg, his assistant, made it a habit to grab his boxes as they became empty, to use for storing things. In this case, it was no doubt important to keep the plutonium undisturbed and uncontaminated, on the one hand, but also, on the other hand, to make it possible for its weak radiations to pass directly into instruments - not through the wall of some closed container. Such considerations, combined probably with an awareness of the historic importance of the sample, brought about the storage arrangement we see.

Neutrons are normally bound into an atomic nucleus, and do not exist free for long in nature. The unbound neutron has a half-life of just under 15 minutes. The release of neutrons from the nucleus requires exceeding the binding energy of the neutron, which is typically 7-9 MeV for most isotopes. Neutron sources generate free neutrons by a variety of nuclear reactions, including nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Whatever the source of neutrons, they are released with energies of several MeV.

The neutrons also have to be slowed down to actually "create" trans-uranium elements

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:49 pm

http://www.infoplease.com/dk/science/en ... atter.html

All matter is made of incredibly tiny particles called atoms. Atoms are far too small to see with our eyes, but scientists have worked out how small they are. There are many kinds of atom. Sand grains are made of two kinds of atom: oxygen and silicon. People are made of about 28 different kinds of atom. Material properties depend on the kinds of atom the material is made from.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:58 pm

flip wrote: I give heaps of logic and observation to backup my idea

No you haven't, you just demonstrated your reading comprehension level isn't very high, and thusly provided quotes that do not exclude the occurrence of neptunium in nature via natural processes.

Your premise only works if there is no such thing as radioactive decay and that atoms once produced persist forever.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:24 pm

Lol, I never said it wouldn't occur naturally, Tebo can testify to that. I said that the only existence of it now is by Nuclear Reaction or Particle Acceleration. Man-made and artificial. Whatever was or may have been, had long since decayed before man started the process over again. It's your comprehension skills that need work.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:34 pm

Neutrons are normally bound into an atomic nucleus, and do not exist free for long in nature. The unbound neutron has a half-life of just under 15 minutes. The release of neutrons from the nucleus requires exceeding the binding energy of the neutron

You must have a continuous supply of free neutrons to "smash" against the uranium to produce trans-uranium elements.

The neutrons also have to be slowed down to actually "create" trans-uranium elements

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:42 pm

what tebo said doesn't exclude it occurring naturally, to wit:

tebo wrote:Uranium ores contain roughly 10^11 times less plutonium than uranium, similar numbers apply for neptunium. The numbers vary, because transuranics are only produced when uranium atoms absorb neutrons not directly through radioactive decay. The number of available neutrons depends on the ore. Neutrons can be produced from alpha particles hitting other atoms and spontaneous fission of uranium. Anyway, these are trace amounts one has to go looking for to find.

You just need a neutron to hit an atom.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:59 pm

Tebo wrote:
flip wrote:We can agree that IF they had ever existed before, the only existence of them now has been created in a lab? In other words, we know it's possible that they COULD have existed because we now understand the process, BUT, they didn't exist until produced in a lab.

Those that can be found on Earth now are artificially generated synthetic elements, via nuclear reactors or particle accelerators.
?
Yes, pretty much all transuranics on earth were created artificially, although that includes nuclear weapons too. Exceptions are the natural reactors at oklo (there might be more that haven't been found).

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:02 pm

tebo wrote:Uranium ores contain roughly 10^11 times less plutonium than uranium, similar numbers apply for neptunium. The numbers vary, because transuranics are only produced when uranium atoms absorb neutrons not directly through radioactive decay. The number of available neutrons depends on the ore. Neutrons can be produced from alpha particles hitting other atoms and spontaneous fission of uranium. Anyway, these are trace amounts one has to go looking for to find.

You do realize how that Plutonium and Neptunium got into the uranium ore is what is at dispute right?

You must have a continuous supply of free neutrons to "smash" against the uranium to produce trans-uranium elements.

The neutrons also have to be slowed down to actually "create" trans-uranium elements