[QUOTE=Uncwilly]But, chemistry and physics majors don't.:no: A naked neutron does not form what one would typically think of as chemical compounds. It falls in the same class of "particle" as the proton and electron. If one would desire to start counting at nul, why not in the negative, and consider the electron the first element? :popcorn:[/QUOTE]Oh I quite agree. The neutron is not generally regarded as an element by chemists. Nonetheless a reasonable argument can be made for it being classified as element zero --- a chemically unreactive gas at STP and radioactive, with a short halflife, beta-decaying to hydrogen.

On the other hand, I take issue with your apparent claim that the proton falls into the same class (chemically speaking) as the neutron. I'll have you know that hydrogen, whether neutral or ionized, is a very important chemical element.

None of this alters the fact that Tc is found in nature...


Paul

Technetium
 

[QUOTE=Uncwilly]But, chemistry and physics majors don't.:no: A naked neutron does not form what one would typically think of as chemical compounds. It falls in the same class of "particle" as the proton and electron. If one would desire to start counting at nul, why not in the negative, and consider the electron the first element? :popcorn:[/QUOTE]
:banana:
Very well put Uncwilly. An excellent distinction between a particle, an element and the negative electron. I agree with you 100%.
:rolleyes:
Paul:
I have and do read your posts carefully and enthusiastically.
You are among some of the few who can treat a subject in depth. But in this Thread you are showing more weakness than strength, in contradictory statements. Re- read your posts and see for yourself. However I will not bother to point them out as this is not a Thread on Science. In passing, you have not replied to my post on the dimensional constant where there was a controversy.

I am in no way contradicting your claim that Tc (technetium) does not exist in Nature.
But its an infinitesimal amount compared to the other elements and compounds existing in the free state or combined.

If you read my posts 202 and 205 the existence of Tc in minute amounts adds to my mystical theory of numbers.

Apart from the ‘dx’ in maths it’s like adding a pinch of salt to a Sirloin steak.
It definitely adds to the flavour!. :cool:
Mally. :coffee:

[QUOTE=Kees][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/786_%28number%29[/url]

could not help myself, but I agree that in this thread there is a problem.
Either we choose numbers which have beautiful properties, but are too easily googled or wikied, or we go for my fiendish lot, which puts the thread in a month long deadlock because the truth of the number is totally unclear.

It would be wonderful to find something in between, but that is really difficult.
In general I google my challenges, just to be sure.

Here is another fiendish one: 4229

A clue [spoiler] 999999 [/spoiler][/QUOTE]
:surrender
Okay Kees please give us what you have in mind.
All I can see is that 4229 is a prime and 999999 is highly composite!
Mally :coffee:

Divide by 7
 

I seem to remember that after division by 7 we stumble upon a popular number in this forum. Play with it...


Kees:cat:

Nice and easy
 

:smile:
Great guns Kees!
I seem to have it this time.
But as is usual or unusual with me, when I have the right answer my post on preview is classified as 'invalid and to inform the administrator'. I dont mind but my post is erased and I have to start from scratch. I have several times informed the admin but to no avail. So Im combining both answer and complaint in this public forum. I hope someone in the admin including the moderator on line takes up this lacuna in the programming and does something about it!!! In other words PLEASE DONT TIME ME OUT!! :furious: :censored:
I am in no mood to elaborate on my observations on your numbers but only put it as 142857
Mally :coffee:

[QUOTE=mfgoode]But in this Thread you are showing more weakness than strength, in contradictory statements. Re- read your posts and see for yourself. However I will not bother to point them out as this is not a Thread on Science.[/quote]Now I'm confused. My position with regard to the neutron being element zero appears to be consistent. I maintain that a reasonable argument can be made that the neutron is element zero but that chemists, by and large, do not accept it as such. IUPAC certainly do not accept it as a chemical element.

On the other hand, I'm certainly not the only person to put forward this argument. It dates back at least 80 years and element zero appears in a periodic table published as late as last year. If you wish to follow up on the subject, [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutronium[/url] will get you started.

On the gripping hand, the neutron almost invariably occurs in a table of isotopes (I'm looking at the table in the [i]CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics[/i] right now) and, of course, it appears in its rightful place just before isotopes of hydrogen, themselves before those of helium.

[QUOTE=mfgoode]In passing, you have not replied to my post on the dimensional constant where there was a controversy.[/quote] I do not remember any controversy. I do remember giving you the definition of the fine structure constant and then taking you clearly and fully through a dimensional analysis to show that \alpha is indeed dimensionless.

[QUOTE=mfgoode] am in no way contradicting your claim that Tc (technetium) does not exist in Nature.
But its an infinitesimal amount compared to the other elements and compounds existing in the free state or combined.[/quote]As you wish. We can easily see large quantities of elemental Tc occurring in stellar atmospheres. That's good enough for me. Presumably, and by the same reasoning, you don't believe that polonium exists in nature either -- it has a very short halflife and exists only transiently between formation from and decay to long-lived isotopes.

[QUOTE=mfgoode]If you read my posts 202 and 205 the existence of Tc in minute amounts adds to my mystical theory of numbers.[/quote]Again, as you wish. I've absolutely no interest in a "mystical theory of numbers" and really don't care whether the presence or absence of Tc makes any difference whatsoever.


Paul

Elements and particles.
 

[QUOTE=xilman]Now I'm confused. My position with regard to the neutron being element zero appears to be consistent. I maintain that a reasonable argument can be made that the neutron is element zero but that chemists, by and large, do not accept it as such. IUPAC certainly do not accept it as a chemical element.

On the other hand, I'm certainly not the only person to put forward this argument. It dates back at least 80 years and element zero appears in a periodic table published as late as last year. If you wish to follow up on the subject, [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutronium[/url] will get you started.

:no: I quote Wiki.
"Neutronium is a term used in science fiction and popular literature to refer to an extremely dense phase of matter composed primarily of neutrons. The word had been coined by Andreas von Antropoff in 1926 (scil., before the discovery of the neutron itself) for the 'element of atomic number zero' that he placed at the head of the periodic table. The meaning of the term changed over time, and from the last half of the 20th century onwards it was used to refer to extremely dense phases of matter resembling the neutron-degenerate matter postulated to exist in the cores of neutron stars.

Well Paul it all depends on how you personally (not universally) define an 'element' and 'particle'.

Five decades ago we were taught that an element consists of atoms which can exist in the free state and still maintain its chemical characteristics such as At. Wt., valency, etc with respect to other chemicals .

The atoms consisted in turn of elementary particles-electrons, protons and neutrons, bound together as one whole.

Thus the atom was the unit with a 'universe' of particles within it which has mushroomed into many constituents today and there are still many not known.
Only the electron could move out of the atom freely and when this happened the atom would borrow from another until then, displaying a charge, or generating a current.

To put it very simply when an atom moved, the elementary particles
moved with it maintaining its Chemical identity and neutral charge.

I sincerely believe that you are not clear on this point, and should review this important distinction thoroughly.
Mally :coffee:

:popcorn:
Well back to numbers
387420489
Mally :coffee:

[spoiler] 9^9
[/spoiler]

155

Special whole numbers.
 

:smile:
That was good Kees.
155 is the sum of the primes between its smallest and largest prime factor(both inclusive)

163:
Hint: connected to 'e' and 'pi' and square root.
Mally :coffee:

almost
 

[spoiler] exp(pi*sqrt(163)) is nearly an integer (10^-12)
[/spoiler]

Your answer for 155 is prettier and more mathematical :cat: than mine.
For me it is the highest break possible in a snookerframe.

What have the numbers 43 and 49 "for the moment" in common ?