Artificial transmutation of elements is possible if atomic number of the elements is greater than 20.?
365797
reason:it was observed that when lighter atoms (usually less than 20) are bombarded with alphaparticles,atoms get radioactive in nature.practically also we can compare this to a thin man and a stout man
35367
I believe it will be possible. The first application of the development of such technology will be the transportation of mass amount of fluids, and solid materials from one place to another. Granted, these materials will probably be simple materials without complexed molecular structure but, it will be the place that other developement will continue from.\n  The technology is centries into the future if it is that soon. The general idea is simple. Breaking down atomic structure in a trasmitable format, transmitting, then reconstituting teh transmitted. It then is a matter of what atomic partical belongs on what part of the carrier wave of the radio/or microwave transmitter. Another additive to the  complexity, is actually getting the particals on the carrier wave. However, if modern modems can convert digital signals into anolog, and analog into digital signals, then other parts of a "transporter" is a matter of time.\nSide note on this: If it will require the power produced from anti-matter generators, then it should interest all that a few anti-matter atoms had been produced. It took more energy to produce those few anti-atoms then they could produce themselves, but it does illistrate that Star-Trek to Star Wars technologies are not entirely impossible.
1176860
In theory, yes.  You create a new element each time you add one more proton to the previous one.\n\nIn practice, there seems to be a practical limit to the stability of the artificial elements that requires exponentially increasing amounts of energy to create the heavier artificial elements.  And since these new elements are usually only stable for tiny fractions of a second, we can't hold them in place for long enough to pump another proton in.\n\nInstead, what physicists do is take larger stable atoms and smash them together, and then look for signs of new elements based on their expected decay particles.
1169808
The periodic table is organized by a few things, but most noticably is the amount of protons located in the nucleus of an atom.\n\n1 Hydrogen, 2 Helium, 3 Lithium, 4 Beryllium, 5 Boron etc\n\nYour question cannot be answered unless we found that there was a limit to the number of protons allowed to be in the nucleus.  As of right now, there is no pursuading evidence that there couldn't be an element with 603 protons, 2005 protons etc...\n\nSo we must admit that there could be an infinite amout of elements (though in the real world there isn't anything that is "Infinite") so theoretically we know 111 elements out of infinity. \nWhich is 0%.
136409
Atomic fusion relates to the release of radiation poweras the result of atomic synthesis.Its is really a Mass defect Phenomena.Experiment have been made to extract Power out of the Process.This required high magnetic field and temperatures.The results have been stale mates.\n\nCold Fusion involves a process at lower temperatures.\nSo far there has been no experiments which were made to be able to obtain  Radiation power. \n\nNuclear fusion would solve our world's energy crisis with no radiactive pollution.\nWE have not being able to make it work yet.\n\nIt Cold fusion may never be realized.The future for that process looks very dim.
229659
Yes you can.  Some, like radioactive elements, are controlled by law or very difficult to get, but you can buy almost anything if you look around enough.\n\nThis guy has put together an excellent collection of elements:\n\nhttp://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/\n\nSome he purchased, some were gifts from people who heard he was trying to collect them all, some he isolated from common chemicals himself, and so on.  It's a very interesting collection.
1044077
Actually, we can.\nIf you put lead into an "atom smasher" you can synthesize gold.\nThe problem is that the process costs more than the price of gold.
1018555
Yes, and all our environmental problems.   At nuclear fusion temperatures you could make a fusion torch that would decompose waste into useful raw materials and transmute radioactive waste into stable elements.   A fusion reactor isn't likely to be small enough to power cars or aircraft, but the cheap energy it produces could be used to synthesise fuels for these vehicles.   We've been researching controlled nuclear fusion since the 1950s and we haven't made much progress.   But it will solve so many problems that it's worth spending vast amounts of money on this field.   Any technology that doesn't violate any fundamental laws of physics will one day work.
778367
Elements that heavy would decay extremely fast, like within a tiny fraction of a second. They could never be stable in nature.
817102
They're constantly adding new ones.  The new ones are synthetically created by bombarding already existing elements with neutrons.  Apparently, they're up to atomic no. 118, now:\n\nhttp://www.webelements.com/webelements/scholar/
140269
Mecury doesn't "lack one electron".  What you would need to do is remove one proton from mercury to make it into gold, in some kind of nuclear reaction.  Now, while not impossible in theory, I don't know of any nuclear pathway to do it, and it would no doubt be prohibitively expensive to do if there were.
279995
They didn't have the ability to change the number of protons in an atom's nucleus.  That's the only way to transmute one element into another.  Of course, most of the time, you end up with something radioactive...until you get to lead.
878748
Every element above Uranium, which has an atomic number of 92, does is not present in nature.  The reason that there are not elements larger than  Uranium in nature is because every element above Uranium has an unstable nucleus that radioactively decays to become a smaller nucles.  The larger the atomic number the more unstable the nucleus is and hte faster it will decay.  Element 112 had a 1/2 life of a second or two.  So the reason why there aren't infinitely large elements is due to the instability of large nuclei.
275473
"Magic numbers" in nuclear physics correspond to when a shell is filled.  There is one number for protons and another for neutrons.  The first magic number is 2, in which a shell has, for both protons and neutrons, one spin-up particle and one spin-down particle.  So, 2 protons and 2 neutrons make a He4 nucleus or alpha particle.  The next magic number is 8 -- 8 protons and 8 neutrons make an O16 (oxygen) nucleus.  \n\nThe first magic numbers are:\n2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, and 126.  Nuclei with a magic number of protons or neutrons are more stable (lower relative energy) than nuclei that have one more or less than that number.  Because of this, nuclei with magic numbers of protons and/or neutrons tend to be more common end products of fusion reactions in stars.
740762
A sample of the starting element is placed inside a nuclear reactor which produces a lot of neutrons, some of which are absorbed by nuclei in the sample. Different nuclides have different affinities for neutron capture.\n\nPolonium 210 has been in the news lately. It's made via this method from bismuth 209. Bismuth 209 captures a neutron to become bismuth 210 and then quickly emits an electron from the nucleus to become polonium 210.\n\nSome artificial nuclides can be produced by bombarding material with protons or electrons from particle accelerators.\n\nTechnetium 99 is an artificial nuclide that is used in every modern hospital every day for a variety of tests. Te99 is formed from the fission of uranium. It is extracted from spent fuel rods from reactors.
920446
Yes, they do. The simplest example I can do is Fe (iron): it's a transition metal and has 3 oxidation states: 0 (Fe as a metal), +2 (FeO), and +\n3 (Fe2O3).
6409
Yes, bombard it with neutrons and it will release energy...\n\nWill it be efficient.. NO. but you can do so.