Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Copernicium Confirmed As Element 112

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the cp-had-other-meanings dept.

Science 183

Several sources are reporting that the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry has confirmed Copernicium as element 112 on the periodic table of elements with the symbol Cn. "The naming of the new element will be the culmination of a long, fraught journey involving fierce competition, dashed hopes, clever detective work and even a brush with scientific misconduct. With a nucleus containing 112 protons — 20 more than uranium, the heaviest of the naturally occurring elements — it will be the weightiest atom whose existence has been confirmed so far."

cancel ×

183 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

1st 112 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31265032)

first post 112 discovered!

Take that china (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31265072)

Now there will never be a chinesium (although i guess we could re-name lead).

<troll/>

Re:Take that china (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265266)

I realize you were going for a joke, but what does China have to do with this? The article gives no indication of competing claims to discovery by Chinese researchers. A Japanese researcher synthesized it at later date in a different way, but again, there doesn't seem to be any dispute over naming rights.

Re:Take that china (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31265308)

try missedthejoke.cn

What's that whooshing noise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31266054)

> try missedthejoke.cn

All I get is an NXDOMAIN?

Missing URL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31266104)

It would appear that missedthejoke.cn has been slashdotted... (/whoosh!)

Re:Take that china (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265354)

China has sent the world an awful lot of lead tainted products over the years - thus the China/lead joke.

Re:Take that china (4, Informative)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265424)

.cn is the country code top-level domain for China. He was making a joke. /whoosh

Re:Take that china (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31266128)

What's this "whoosh" thing?

Re:Take that china (1)

darthdavid (835069) | more than 4 years ago | (#31266332)

The sound of the joke going over your head :P

Re:Take that china (0, Redundant)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#31266312)

To spoil your joke, if an element was named after China, I don't think this would be a big problem. For example, Americium is Am, and the USA's ISO country code is US.

Re:Take that china (1)

xs650 (741277) | more than 4 years ago | (#31266418)

To spoil your spoiler, Americium was named before ISO existed.

Re:Take that china (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31266486)

That's because America is the name of a Continent not a country.

Re:Take that china (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31266508)

And Chinese people refer to them selves as zhongguo anyway. So they would more likely call it Zh.

Element 420 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31265500)

Element 420 is named Mybongium.

Re:Element 420 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31265564)

And whoa man, it will be like, huuuuge, as big as my hand man.

Re:Take that china (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265884)

Can we make that official? ;)

I also suggest renaming America to PlasticFantastica ;)

(You are eligible to naming European countries. ;)

P.S.: <tag/> would be a tag that is closed in itself. So it would not include anyting before or after it. Not quite what you intended, I guess... ;)

The naming was the easy part! (0)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265078)

Now, as for what it will be used for!

Re:The naming was the easy part! (2, Informative)

raftpeople (844215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265134)

I think there was a commercial on QVC last night for some jewelry made of this stuff.

Re:The naming was the easy part! (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265332)

It will be used for "copernicium plumbing" - plumbing that is too heavy to steal from a construction site.

yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31265080)

Can't wait 'til they get to element 115!

But But but (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265082)

What about ununbium?

Re:But But but (2, Funny)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265126)

What about ununbium?

Can't be worse than Unobtainium *gag*.

Thankyou Avatar, for the dumbest name of a substance in movie history.

Re:But But but (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31265234)

Unobtanium has been around for far longer than Avatar.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtanium

Re:But But but (4, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265610)

Exactly you can find it right between the unaffordium and the baloneyum.

Re:But But but (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265306)

Unobtainium enjoys a long history.

So you would just criticize Avatar for being trite, not thank it for the word.

Re:But But but (4, Informative)

perlchild (582235) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265322)

Avatar wasn't the first use of that, they actually reused a name that had been used in literature for decades...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium [wikipedia.org]

Re:But But but (0, Troll)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265504)

Avatar wasn't the first use of that, they actually reused a name that had been used in literature for decades...

Which makes it less retarded how, exactly?

Re:But But but (4, Interesting)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265754)

Yeah, I've used Unobtainium for years, and everyone here at work knows what's meant. (Admittedly, I'm an Engineer.) Okay, not quite true, as two foreign Engineers didn't know what it was.

In Avatar, Unobtanium was the McGuffin -- it didn't matter what it was, just that there was a reason that Homo Sapiens was on a different, hostile planet that wasn't for xenorelations. Water's plentiful on comets, any minerals would be easier to get from asteroids, since there's way less of a gravity well, and so the only reason we'd be there is either to talk to aliens or to get a rare material.

A room-temperature superconductor is pretty much the Holy Grail of Physics.

It doesn't explain why the humans didn't just take the mountains and / or use orbital bombardment.

Re:But But but (1)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#31266336)

Nuclear. Fucking. Weapons. There's no problem that cannot be made to go away with sufficient use of nuclear weapons.

Even nuclear proliferation! Set enough of 'em off and bam, no more problem.

Re:But But but (5, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265484)

On the other hand, they had a pretty interesting scientific backstory [harpercollins.com] for the movie. When I was watching the movie, when the guy set down the "unobtanium" on a platform and it floated, I immediately thought, "Huh... I bet that's supposed to be a room-temperature superconductor. Which would explain the demand." And indeed, that's exactly the intent. According to the backstory, part of the reason for the intense initial interest in the moon was the very high magnetic field strength it displayed. And since superconductors expel magnetic fields, leading to stable levitation, the floating mountains and continents are actually scientifically plausible in such a scenario. The very high magnetic field and the presence of the moon orbiting in the radiation belt of a gas giant leads to very high levels of ionizing radiation at the poles and at the intense local distortions in the magnetic field from the "unobtanium" -- to the degree that they're not just deadly, but also lead to a large current flowing through the planet.

The explanation for the mineral name is that scientists frustrated on Earth used began using the name "unobtanium" in reference to high temperature superconductors (before stable versions were found on Pandora) that it stuck.

Re:But But but (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265900)

And here was I thinking that the movie writers were too lazy to think of a name and just stuck in the generic term.

Also thanks for the backstory info, makes me want to read the book a whole lot more than the movie did.

Re:But But but (1)

MostAwesomeDude (980382) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265936)

I internally rationalized with the idea that it could be e.g. ununoctium oxide, some theoretical super-heavy ore that got nicknamed "unobtainium" as a pun due to the native resistance to mining operations.

That's a pretty fascinating backstory, though.

Re:But But but (0)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31266700)

You do know that "unobtainium" was a nod to geeks and nerds everywhere right? Since it's commonly used by engineers in "what if" scenarios for what they would design if they had materials that do not exist today, right? You knew that already, right?

Oh you missed that? Sorry.

Why are you here again?

Re:But But but (1)

ArundelCastle (1581543) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265690)

What about ununbium?

Too much of a double double negative. And speaking of which, I heard Starbucks is still lobbying for Lattenium.

Re:But But but (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#31266164)

According to Wikipedia, it's called "Roentgenium".

Later that night... (3, Funny)

weaponx86 (1112757) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265100)

Uranium was seen at a local club with Copernicium, probably to make her feel better about herself.

Re:Later that night... (3, Informative)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265592)

Interestingly enough, uranium isn't the heaviest naturally occurring element. It occurs in two ways. One is extremely small amounts [wikipedia.org] of natural Pu-244 The other is muromontite [theodoregray.com] , which is a beryllium and sometimes uranium-containing form of allanite, making it a natural breeder reactor.

On Earth (2, Insightful)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265106)

20 more than uranium, the heaviest of the naturally occurring elements

Minor quibble... it's the heavies of the naturally occurring elements on Earth. Heaver elements usually require different conditions (higher energy levels, gravity differences, etc) that can be found on earth. But there's nothing to say they can't be found elsewhere...

Re:On Earth (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31265146)

20 more than uranium, the heaviest of the naturally occurring elements

Minor quibble... it's the heavies of the naturally occurring elements on Earth. Heaver elements usually require different conditions (higher energy levels, gravity differences, etc) that can be found on earth. But there's nothing to say they can't be found elsewhere...

Hey jackass, how many people do we have trying to identify new elements anywhere else besides Earth?

Re:On Earth (4, Informative)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265258)

Actually, a lot more than you'd think. First, there's the analyzing of Emission Spectrum [wikipedia.org] from distant worlds and stars. Second, there have been several probes to the moon, mars and other celestial bodies that have attempted to (and some succeeded) look at and identify the chemical makeup of what it was looking at. Third (as if that wasn't enough) we have theoretical physicists that can (and do) calculate the makeup of the rest of the known (and known) universe. So surely it does matter to SOME people...

Re:On Earth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31266250)

And have they stumbled across any heavier elements? No? Didn't think so.

Re:On Earth (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265480)

Oh, there are others, believe you me ...

shhh ... don't tell anyone ... but if you want I'll forward one of their newsletters to you. Don't be alarmed by the old date on it. They tell me that intergalactic mail is sloooow and it takes a while to get here. The crazy part is sometimes I have to renew my subscriptions several times between newsletters due to some kind of odd differences of planetary orbital durrations. It's a good thing they take cash, because frankly, the bank will only cash my checks for 90 days after their written.

Re:On Earth (1)

f8l_0e (775982) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265538)

Well, studying meteorites that are here on earth is still a way of discovering elements potentially not from this earth. While you mull that over, I suggest some self reflection. [penny-arcade.com]

Re:On Earth (4, Informative)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265666)

Hey jackass, how many people do we have trying to identify new elements anywhere else besides Earth?

Actually, Helium was discovered not on Earth, but the Sun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium [wikipedia.org]

Re:On Earth (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265732)

"Hey jackass, how many people do we have trying to identify new elements anywhere else besides Earth?"

Helium was first discovred in the Sun, donkey breath.

Re:On Earth (1)

arndawg (1468629) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265290)

I don't remember much from high-school chemistry but isn't it something about "man-made" atoms is so unstable that they won't be able to exist naturally?

Re:On Earth (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265556)

It's not the fact that they're "man-made" that makes them unstable, we just don't often bother using colliders to make atoms that would exist naturally.

Re:On Earth (1)

C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) | more than 4 years ago | (#31266150)

is not the "man made" factor that makes them unstable.

plutonium is man made and is a helluva lot stabler than heavier atoms. thing is, at those high atomic numbers, it takes a whole lot of neutrons on the nucleus to make the atom stable, more neutrons than the colision of two lighter atoms provide. the result is a heavy element that lacks the neccessary neutrons to be stable. putting extra neutrons there is the tricky part.

Re:On Earth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31265570)

On a cosmic timescale? pretty much. When you have something with a half-life measured in fractions of a second, you would need an initial mass close to the entire mass of the universe to survive in detectable amounts through the 5+ billion years it takes for super nova outflow gas to cool and condense into a planet capable of evolving life to go about looking for it. Stuff like this most likely does occur naturally in supernova produced nebula's, it just won't last very long when we are considering the age of the universe.

Re:On Earth (2, Interesting)

reverseengineer (580922) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265338)

And (even more minor quibble) it's not even technically true that uranium is the heaviest naturally occurring element on earth. Trace amounts of some transuranic elements are found in deposits of uranium ore, particularly at the natural nuclear reactor at Oklo, Gabon as a result of neutron irradiation of uranium, the same principle as used in breeder reactors.

Re:On Earth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31265344)

RTFS!

"whose existence has been confirmed so far."

Re:On Earth (0, Flamebait)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265476)

The bit you quote is in reference to the existence of the Copernicium element, not that Uranium is the heaviest naturally occurring element...

With a nucleus containing 112 protons - 20 more than uranium, the heaviest of the naturally occurring elements - it will be the weightiest atom whose existence has been confirmed so far.

Notice the em dashes? They delineate the parts of the sentence... So, way to go quoting information out of context in an attempt to prove an irrelevant point... Thanks for trying...

Re:On Earth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31265750)

If you aren't a troll, you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Re:On Earth (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265366)

Technically, it's inaccurate on Earth as well. Trace amounts of plutonium are found in concentrated uranium ore, particularly those deposits that have acted as a natural nuclear fission reactor, [wikipedia.org] the most famous being the Oklo [wikipedia.org] reactor.

Re:On Earth (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265404)

Considering the half lives of the ultra-heavy elements, they don't exist anywhere other than labs except for brief periods in supernovae.

Re:On Earth (3, Interesting)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265562)

Except that the larger elements have much shorter half-lives. Unless there's a stable (or nearly so) element, we won't find anything hiher than ~Americium we won't find a quantity of higher elements worth mentioning. Uranium is the heaviest element in nature in any quantity (Plutonium and Americium occur in trace quantities due to spontaneous fission and the neutron irradiation that results) Supernovae and black holes might have the conditions neccessary to forge super heavy elements but the stability of these elements is the real problem.

Re:On Earth (1)

red_pill1987 (1661527) | more than 4 years ago | (#31266548)

well, i belive its theorised that someone in the 120s theres an island of stablity where it might be find an element that might last for a length of time worth note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability [wikipedia.org]

Re:On Earth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31266472)

Californium can be found in spectra of astronomical objects

natural? (1)

planckscale (579258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265118)

So what I don't understand is if this particle would ever naturally occur? During the big bang? In a supernova? And if not then why continue to spend money and time on the task of building bigger and bigger particles? What use will they be if only to exist for a fraction of a second?

Re:natural? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265236)

I believe that our drive to construct bigger elements helps confirm that our scientific model is correct - and should we discover any discrepancies (like say the UV Catastrophe) than that only helps us understand things better, since we reform our theories to fit the results.

Re:natural? (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265282)

Because knowledge is a good thing? As it happens, Copernicium_285 has a halflife that is higher than elements 109 and up [wikipedia.org] .

I find it interesting, but apparently you seem to think that knowledge is a bad thing.

Why? Who cares.
Could finding out possibly be of use? Who cares.
Suppose we find perfectly stable elements? Why bother?

Re:natural? (4, Informative)

EdZ (755139) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265388)

It's theorised that somewhere in the 1xx range lies one or more "islands of stability", where one or more undiscovered heavy elements exist with either very long half-lives, or stable nuclei.

Re:natural? (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265456)

Actually, your basic belief is false. Not all larger particles exist only for a fraciton of a second. There are cycles and some elemental numbers that we can not yet created have been theorized to be stable for long time periods. In addition, we do NOT have a reasonable sample of all 'naturally' occuring particles. We only got what this particular are of the universe happens to have. As such, it is quite likely that there are places in the galaxy where some of these large, stable elements exist in large quantities.

Re:natural? (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 4 years ago | (#31266748)

If super-heavy elements are discovered which have longer half-lives (and this is suspected to be the case), these elements would be extremely valuable simply for their density if nothing else. Ion drives use heavy, inert atoms as their reaction material -- xenon, for instance. The efficiency of any propulsion system goes up as the per-particle mass of the propellant increases. So one application of stable, super-heavy elements would be as reaction material for ion thrusters. It doesn't even have to be stable for that long -- just long enough for the mission at hand.

Of course, we'd have to develop a way of creating the nuclei more than just a few at a time.

Cp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31265132)

It couldn't keep the symbol Cp because of the other thing this stands for...Captain Picard of course.

Re:Cp (1)

a_fuzzyduck (979684) | more than 4 years ago | (#31266434)

It's a shame, I really wanted some Cp as well... Also, if they manage to make Copernicium Nitride, will they have to get James Earl Jones in?

another name that would have been good... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31265170)

Fibonaccium

Re:another name that would have been good... (1)

Sinning (1433953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265260)

Perfect! My kingdom for a mod point!

Re:another name that would have been good... (1)

agbinfo (186523) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265518)

That's reserved for element 144.

Re:another name that would have been good... (1)

Conchobair (1648793) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265544)

I think we missed the chance for that with element 89 (Actinium), however we will have a chance again with element 144. I like the idea though.

Re:another name that would have been good... (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31266746)

That's the great thing about Fibonacci, he keeps coming round again!

Finally... (1, Funny)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265186)

My breathless wait is over.

Cool name (-1, Troll)

Archaemic (1546639) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265240)

Cool, now Copernicus has an element named after him.

...remind me again, what did Copernicus do that was related to nuclear physics?

Re:Cool name (3, Insightful)

bcmm (768152) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265464)

...remind me again, what did Copernicus do that was related to nuclear physics?

Element names are used to honour people and places for all sorts of reasons, and Copernicus clearly deserves it.

Röntgen's contributions were not exactly nuclear physics either, and Alfred Nobel wasn't even a physicist (neither was Vasili Samarsky-Bykhovets).

Re:Cool name (1)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265498)

Copernicus is widely credited as being a key figure in the birth of the scientific revolution. Which lead to nuclear physics, among other things.

Re:Cool name (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265548)

...remind me again, what did Copernicus do that was related to nuclear physics?

Dude, he only invented Newton ... and we all know Newton invented gravity and cool PDA's. This is /., try to keep up ;-)

Re:Cool name (1)

reverseengineer (580922) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265632)

He collaborated on the same work in nuclear physics that Alfred Nobel is known for.

Honestly, the parent does have a point though- other than nobelium and copernicium, there seems to be a clear trend from americium (#95) onward to name elements either for their place of discovery or after important nuclear scientists. Although, you could make the case that Einstein was not primarily a nuclear physicist, and the nucleus wasn't even known when Mendeleev drew up his table, they had made important contributions to the understanding of atoms. Copernicus is certainly deserving of the honor, and there's nothing to forbid it in terms of the IUPAC rules- I just think it's interesting that a 300-year gap exists between Copernicus and the next scientist so honored. Next up: newtonium?

Re:Cool name (1)

MrTripps (1306469) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265714)

He did kinda start the whole scientific revolution thingy. That might have a little to do with nuclear physics.

We are slowly... (1)

cbuosi (1492959) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265270)

We are slowly getting there: http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Periodic_table [wikia.com]

Re:We are slowly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31265990)

poor metals

(quote from link)

<joke cliché="cliché">
Damn, you'd think the other elements would at least give them some food, or something.
</joke>

Beryllium (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265300)

When I first heard "Beryllium" I got rather excited ... it sounded "beer-ilicious indeed!" ... until I saw how it was spelled and thought "damn, that even looks like it will taste bad".

Re:Beryllium (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265792)

That's okay, I kept trying to hug mercury.

Re:Beryllium (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265910)

Beer atoms [youtube.com]

Great, but... (-1, Troll)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265394)

...does it run linux?

...and (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31265744)

...will it blend?

Re:Great, but... (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265818)

It will in a Beowulf cluster.

Three elements away... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31265630)

... from Elerium-115.

Oh, and I want one of those Hovertank/Laser units too.

Uranium Not The Heaviest Natural Element On Earth (3, Informative)

careysub (976506) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265656)

Since plutonium, element 93, is found in uranium ores (being bred there by neutron capture) and Pu-244 (half-life 80.8 million years) has also survived in detectable quantities from the formation of the Earth, uranium is not the heaviest natural element on Earth.

Re:Uranium Not The Heaviest Natural Element On Ear (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265746)

Minor nit, but IIRC, plutonium is element 94. Neptunium is 93.

Re:Uranium Not The Heaviest Natural Element On Ear (1)

WeatherGod (1726770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265922)

Nitpick, Pu is element 94.

Is the atomic weight... (1)

zawarski (1381571) | more than 4 years ago | (#31265828)

...'delicious' or 'snacktackular'?

E-115 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31265858)

All I care about is making sure element 115 gets named Elerium.

113 Should be Unobtainium! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31266322)

Hopefully it will be found by Weyland-Yutani...

copper (2, Insightful)

yoyoq (1056216) | more than 4 years ago | (#31266498)

copernicus was named after copper (dad was a copper smith or something) so this makes two elements named after copper. not very original.

Re:copper (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 4 years ago | (#31266708)

Uh... Copper isn't named after copper. It *is* copper. So we have one element named copper, and another element named after a person who was named after copper. I don't see the problem. The point is the person, not the copper.

Tribute to Tom Lehrer (1)

kobiashi maru (1717276) | more than 4 years ago | (#31266648)

"these are the only ones of which the news has come to Harvard, and there may be many others but they haven't been discovered"

What about... (1)

HForN (1095499) | more than 4 years ago | (#31266756)

The element of surprise?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>