PDA

View Full Version : Atomic Weight of Naquadah



Beatrice Otter
January 9th, 2005, 08:07 PM
I've always had this problem with Naquadah: it is specifically described as an "element" in several places, yet it's not one we're familiar with. Well, the only ones we're unfamiliar with don't exist in nature. There's no room to slide any more in, either. (For those of you who don't know, "elements" are pure atoms, in their most basic form, not mixed with anything else. Each atom has a unique atomic number, i.e. the number of protons in its nucleus. We know the atomic weights of each naturally occurring element, from atomic number 1 (hydrogen) to 92 (uranium), in a straight sequence with no gaps. We've also been able to manufacture heavier elements in the lab (93-112; 114; 116; 118).

The thing is, the heavier elements are inherently unstable (i.e. radioactive). Intensely so; that's why uranium is used in atomic weapons and reactors. And the higher the atomic number, the more unstable and radioactive it is; the newest elements to be created/discovered only lasted a few seconds before decaying into lighter, stabler elements (giving off radiation in the process). Since the lighter elements are so well-known, any new element has to be higher than 112. Which means _highly_ unstable and radioactive. And this is the stuff they mine out of the ground with picks and axes, and make into everything? This is the stuff that Carter's got inside her? Why, I asked myself, didn't they all die of radiation poisoning?

At last, I have my answer. I was watching a program on the Science channel this morning about the most important scientific discoveries of 2004, and they started talking about the new elements discovered last year. In the conversation, they mentioned that scientists are fairly sure that once you hit an atomic number of 130 or so, the elements would start to be stable again. Why they believe that they didn't say.

But who cares! It solves the problem with Naquadah. Naquadah is indeed an element with a high atomic weight, probably somewhere in the 130's. That would also explain why pure naquadah is so heavy; it would have to be somewhere around twice the weight of lead. (Lead (Pb) has an atomic number of 82, a little over half that of what Naquadah would have to be.)

So I propose an addition to the Periodic Table ;). I think Nh would be a good symbol for it (Na is already taken; it's sodium). Though I could be persuaded to go with Nq. Whatcha think?

UnderT
January 9th, 2005, 08:15 PM
Interesting, it would be a high number, but the raw naquada was not pure it does need to be refined, but I probably don't know what i'm talking about. :D

IMForeman
January 9th, 2005, 08:21 PM
Fat. :D

--someone had to say it.

-IMF

DelTrax1
January 9th, 2005, 08:26 PM
I wonder what an actual deposit would look like. And why would earth not have any?

DelTrax1
January 9th, 2005, 08:27 PM
Even if it was all used by the Anceints before they left our planet wouldn't there still be some traces over the years? Wouldn't the Earth naturally replace it when they left?

UnderT
January 9th, 2005, 08:34 PM
I don't think Naquada is present on every planet, it seems to me to be present on about 50% ?? of planets.

DelTrax1
January 9th, 2005, 08:41 PM
Actually I think I remember hearing that Earth never had it.

cobraR478
January 9th, 2005, 08:57 PM
I think they said naquadah does not occur naturally in our solar system on several occations.

Chyndonax
January 9th, 2005, 09:11 PM
Interesting, it would be a high number, but the raw naquada was not pure it does need to be refined, but I probably don't know what i'm talking about. :D

Maybe in the series they are using refining differently than you are here. They may just mean removing the other substances that were taken out of the ground while mining the naquada? That would not be using the term correctly for the SG fellows but it would explain the contradiction and it wouldn't be the first time terminology has been misused.

Tok'Ra Hostess
January 10th, 2005, 06:36 AM
.... scientists are fairly sure that once you hit an atomic number of 130 or so, the elements would start to be stable again.

<nods> In Torment of Tantalus, waay back in season one, Ernest said that there were 146 elements catalogued in the "Meaning of Life stuff" book.

nthanki
January 10th, 2005, 06:44 AM
Fat. :D

--someone had to say it.

-IMF

I just remembered what that was refering to. LOL

Tok'Ra Hostess
January 10th, 2005, 08:40 AM
Even if it was all used by the Anceints before they left our planet wouldn't there still be some traces over the years? Wouldn't the Earth naturally replace it when they left?

Exactly. Assuming that there ever was naq in our solar system, which, according to show canon, there is not, and assuming the Ancients were somehow able to mine every last gram of the stuff from Earth, more would have eventually made its way to the surface of planets from the crucible of Earth's core in the millions of years since the Ancients would have stopped mining it here. This very fact proves, to me, at least, that the Ancients are not native to Earth.

Qasim
January 10th, 2005, 09:32 AM
as naquadah and naquadria exist I think they might be referring to a compound.

Mr Prophet
January 10th, 2005, 09:47 AM
Maybe in the series they are using refining differently than you are here. They may just mean removing the other substances that were taken out of the ground while mining the naquada? That would not be using the term correctly for the SG fellows but it would explain the contradiction and it wouldn't be the first time terminology has been misused.

If we're talking about a mineral then refining would be freeing from impurities. Raw naquadah might well be an ore, in which case it would be a compound, not dissimilar to haematite, or simply a mixture of naquadah and assorted impurities.

Naquadriah would have the same atomic number as naquadah, but most likely a higher atomic weight, since the description of it is most compatible with an unstable isotope, rather than a separate element.

Finally, remember that naquadah makes a tragic mockery of about 90% of conventional physical laws.

Crazedwraith
January 10th, 2005, 10:45 AM
according to 'red sky' its around 200.

Tok'Ra Hostess
January 10th, 2005, 10:46 AM
Finally, remember that naquadah makes a tragic mockery of about 90% of conventional physical laws.

And we all remember what Narim had to say about our grasp of physics. :p

Filipino
January 10th, 2005, 11:21 AM
I wonder what an actual deposit would look like. And why would earth not have any?
Naquada in its raw form was shown in Stargate the movie when O'Neil & Jackson encountered the Abydonians.

Beatrice Otter
January 10th, 2005, 04:17 PM
Maybe in the series they are using refining differently than you are here. They may just mean removing the other substances that were taken out of the ground while mining the naquada? That would not be using the term correctly for the SG fellows but it would explain the contradiction and it wouldn't be the first time terminology has been misused.
Well, "refining" anything doesn't mean _changeing_ it; it means taking all the impurities out of it. "Raw" anything (that is, as it is found in nature--in the ground, air, water, etc.) has to have all the other stuff taken out of it. Take gold, for example. In nature, it is found in solid chunks mixed with rocks. You refine it to get rid of the rock, so all you have left is the gold. Uranium is like that as well--to get reactor-quality uranium, you have to refine it and take all the other stuff out of it. In fact, almost all elements have to be refined and purified, if you find them in their natural states. So, yes, the way it has been used in Stargate until now is the correct terminology.

Beatrice Otter
January 10th, 2005, 04:24 PM
as naquadah and naquadria exist I think they might be referring to a compound.
Nope, not necessarily. Besides the fact that Nh is referred to numerous times as an element, Naquadriah could very well be an unstable isotope of it. (Or it could be some form of compound, but an unstable isotope seems more likely to me.) As an isotope, it could have its own name (and even chemical symbol); Deuterium (a hydrogen isotope; D) does, after all. Howabout Nh for naquadah, and Nq for Naquadria?

aAnubiSs
January 10th, 2005, 04:30 PM
What's wrong with Nq as Naquadah and Nr as Naquadriah?

Beatrice Otter
January 10th, 2005, 04:37 PM
I could go with that. Nq and Nr it is. Unless someone else has an objection?

Beatrice Otter
January 10th, 2005, 04:39 PM
What's wrong with Nq as Naquadah and Nr as Naquadriah?
I can go with that. Nq and Nr it is. Unless someone else has an objection?

alz0rz
January 10th, 2005, 05:45 PM
I can go with that. Nq and Nr it is. Unless someone else has an objection?

I like it :)

Exclaimation Point
January 10th, 2005, 09:41 PM
I cannot believe how nerdy you people are!

Of course, I just sat here and read this whole thread, so I'm the pot calling the kettle black! (not that pots or kettles are black anymore)

aAnubiSs
January 10th, 2005, 09:42 PM
Naquadah-enhanced pot? gimmie! (there are several meanings:D)

stbede77
January 10th, 2005, 10:59 PM
Where in the hell are you pulling this SH&! from man... Your right about the atomic number corresponding to the number of protons but it also corresponds to the number of electrons in the neutral atom. Your statement about "the higher the atomic number is the more unstable and radioactive it is" is totally false. Get your facts strait! It's true that the some of the elements that have higher atomic numbers are unstable and some of them decay so rapidly that you could never see them. But the atomic number has nothing to do with the radioactivity. Check out Atomic Number 112 (Ununbium-277)... It consists of bombarded atoms of lead with ions of zinc. This produced an isotope with a half-life of about 0.24 milliseconds (0.00024 seconds). So before you go rambling on about crap because you watched some program on the Science channel go back to school and take a Chemistry class.

Qasim
January 11th, 2005, 04:04 AM
Where in the hell are you pulling this SH&! from man... Your right about the atomic number corresponding to the number of protons but it also corresponds to the number of electrons in the neutral atom. Your statement about "the higher the atomic number is the more unstable and radioactive it is" is totally false. Get your facts strait! It's true that the some of the elements that have higher atomic numbers are unstable and some of them decay so rapidly that you could never see them. But the atomic number has nothing to do with the radioactivity. Check out Atomic Number 112 (Ununbium-277)... It consists of bombarded atoms of lead with ions of zinc. This produced an isotope with a half-life of about 0.24 milliseconds (0.00024 seconds). So before you go rambling on about crap because you watched some program on the Science channel go back to school and take a Chemistry class.
thats a mouthful - are you scientist by any chance?

Thor's Pal
January 11th, 2005, 04:22 AM
I could go with that. Nq and Nr it is. Unless someone else has an objection?
I think we've already pointed out an objection. Given the fact that Naquadriah is not a naturally occurering, calling it an isotope of naquada makes sence. Isotopes have the same name as its parent eleament, and is id as a isotope by the number of electrons. So Naquadriah would be id as Nq-156

yes, I've had a nuc enginering class.

Tok'Ra Hostess
January 11th, 2005, 07:51 AM
Where in the hell are you pulling this SH&! from man... Your right about the atomic number corresponding to the number of protons but it also corresponds to the number of electrons in the neutral atom. Your statement about "the higher the atomic number is the more unstable and radioactive it is" is totally false. Get your facts strait! It's true that the some of the elements that have higher atomic numbers are unstable and some of them decay so rapidly that you could never see them. But the atomic number has nothing to do with the radioactivity. Check out Atomic Number 112 (Ununbium-277)... It consists of bombarded atoms of lead with ions of zinc. This produced an isotope with a half-life of about 0.24 milliseconds (0.00024 seconds). So before you go rambling on about crap because you watched some program on the Science channel go back to school and take a Chemistry class.


Since you're suggesting that folks get an education, why don't you take a course in good manners? :mad:

Beatrice Otter
January 11th, 2005, 09:27 AM
I think we've already pointed out an objection. Given the fact that Naquadriah is not a naturally occurering, calling it an isotope of naquada makes sence. Isotopes have the same name as its parent eleament, and is id as a isotope by the number of electrons. So Naquadriah would be id as Nq-156

yes, I've had a nuc enginering class.
Which is more than I've had. But like I mentioned earlier, (and I'm not trying to be a smartass here, I'm genuinely curious), Deuterium is an isotope of Hydrogen, yet has its own name and chemical symbol. So why can't Naquadria have the same? Considering how different it is, and how distinct it is to work with?

Beatrice Otter
January 11th, 2005, 09:41 AM
Where in the hell are you pulling this SH&! from man... Your right about the atomic number corresponding to the number of protons but it also corresponds to the number of electrons in the neutral atom. Your statement about "the higher the atomic number is the more unstable and radioactive it is" is totally false. Get your facts strait! It's true that the some of the elements that have higher atomic numbers are unstable and some of them decay so rapidly that you could never see them. But the atomic number has nothing to do with the radioactivity. Check out Atomic Number 112 (Ununbium-277)... It consists of bombarded atoms of lead with ions of zinc. This produced an isotope with a half-life of about 0.24 milliseconds (0.00024 seconds). So before you go rambling on about crap because you watched some program on the Science channel go back to school and take a Chemistry class.
Okay, aside from the fact that the bit about higher-atomic-number elements having high radiation is what I learned in my Honors Chemistry class, the belief that my facts are inaccurate is no reason to be verbally abusive. A simple statement of fact would have sufficed. Besides, the whole point of me starting this thread was that I found that that part of what I had always been taught was inaccurate!

When you can discuss it calmly in a rational fashion without resorting to profanity and insult, I would love to have my theory corrected.

As to Uub, doesn't the fact that it has a half-life mean that it emits radiation (albeit for a very short time:))? I thought half-life was the amount of time it took for half the atoms present to decay, which implies that at least some radiation is emitted. Am I right? And yes, I do know that there are many things in nature that are mildly radioactive; that's the whole point behind carbon-dating and most other chemical dating processes.

IMForeman
January 11th, 2005, 12:40 PM
Where in the hell are you pulling this SH&! from man... Your right about the atomic number corresponding to the number of protons but it also corresponds to the number of electrons in the neutral atom. Your statement about "the higher the atomic number is the more unstable and radioactive it is" is totally false. Get your facts strait! It's true that the some of the elements that have higher atomic numbers are unstable and some of them decay so rapidly that you could never see them. But the atomic number has nothing to do with the radioactivity. Check out Atomic Number 112 (Ununbium-277)... It consists of bombarded atoms of lead with ions of zinc. This produced an isotope with a half-life of about 0.24 milliseconds (0.00024 seconds). So before you go rambling on about crap because you watched some program on the Science channel go back to school and take a Chemistry class.

Oh my God! It's Dr. McKay! Welcome to the board, Rodney! :mad:

There's a right way and a wrong way to do everything... and THAT was the wrong way.

-IMF

dd78matt
January 11th, 2005, 04:31 PM
Exactly. Assuming that there ever was naq in our solar system, which, according to show canon, there is not, and assuming the Ancients were somehow able to mine every last gram of the stuff from Earth, more would have eventually made its way to the surface of planets from the crucible of Earth's core in the millions of years since the Ancients would have stopped mining it here. This very fact proves, to me, at least, that the Ancients are not native to Earth.

Actually, no. Now considering I have only had Basic Chemistry because I am only in highschool, I may not be correct, but just hear me out. Elements are only made during extreme condition when the elements smack together and become heaveir elements. These conditions are so harsh, that our core cannot reproduce them, thus our core cannot create heavier elements, let alone one as heavy as Naquadah(assuming it is an element at around 130).

Now just because there is none left, assuming it was hear in the first place, doesn't mean the Ancients aren't from Earth, based on their technology, they could have completely stripped earth of Naq, including the core, without leaving any marks. For all we know they could have remotely located it and then transported it to where it was needed. Or possibly they synthesized it, much like the Asgard synthesis their products.

Now let's not forget it is widly held that Naq was never on Earth, and people assume this means that the Ancients didn't evolve on Earth. Now who's to say to be capable of interstellar travel you have to use Naq? Perhaps the Ancients were exploring via ship, and then discovered Naq. OR perhaps they created the element artificially in labs. I don't believe it is to far fetched. Now none of these are canon, and there are other possibilities, but just think about it.

Giantevilhead
January 11th, 2005, 04:38 PM
Exactly. Assuming that there ever was naq in our solar system, which, according to show canon, there is not, and assuming the Ancients were somehow able to mine every last gram of the stuff from Earth, more would have eventually made its way to the surface of planets from the crucible of Earth's core in the millions of years since the Ancients would have stopped mining it here. This very fact proves, to me, at least, that the Ancients are not native to Earth.

Or they never used any naquadah until they discovered it on other planets with their ships.

Tok'Ra Hostess
January 11th, 2005, 05:01 PM
Elements are only made during extreme condition when the elements smack together and become heaveir elements. These conditions are so harsh, that our core cannot reproduce them, thus our core cannot create heavier elements, let alone one as heavy as Naquadah(assuming it is an element at around 130).

So you're saying that even if the element, naq did exist on Earth, that it was not "made in Earth" so to speak? Like a humongous asteroid strike?(<pondering....> possible, I suppose; just look at Sudbury, Canada)

OTOH, can an element exist in measurable quantities on a planet and not be affected by its planet's core, yet it can be mined with hand tools and forged in a mere furnace into such things as gates and ships?



Now let's not forget it is widly held that Naq was never on Earth, and people assume this means that the Ancients didn't evolve on Earth. Now who's to say to be capable of interstellar travel you have to use Naq? Perhaps the Ancients were explorinI'mg via ship, and then discovered Naq. OR perhaps they created the element artificially in labs. I don't believe it is to far fetched. Now none of these are canon, and there are other possibilities, but just think about it.

Well, that's another topic and I'd (rightly) get my fingers rapped for going off topic. I know there are threads out there argueing for and against Ancients originating on Earth.

dd78matt
January 12th, 2005, 02:16 PM
So you're saying that even if the element, naq did exist on Earth, that it was not "made in Earth" so to speak? Like a humongous asteroid strike?(<pondering....> possible, I suppose; just look at Sudbury, Canada)

OTOH, can an element exist in measurable quantities on a planet and not be affected by its planet's core, yet it can be mined with hand tools and forged in a mere furnace into such things as gates and ships?



Sorta. Well, everything in the Universe was all compacted into an area of a very small volume, it exploded, spewing all of that matter everywhere, and in the process, creating heavier elements then hydrogen. This theory on how the Universe was created is the Big Bang Theory. That matter turned into planets, stars and everything we know to exist. Those stars had nuclear reactions creating even heavier elemnts (such as Naq). Some of them died, and spreading their matter out. So if there was Naq on Earth, it was on Earth since the beggining of time(or the time that the star that created Earth exploded). Earth didn't produce the Naq, if it was here. A star did, but since it was hear since the beggining, it is technically homogonous to Earth, but the reason, possibly, there is none left on Earth is because the Ancients used it all, or because there was none in the first place. And it isnt here still because the core cannot reproduce such conditions.

What you are thinking of, being reproduced by the Earth, are such compounds as diamonds and coal. Earth doesnt replenish elements though, because matter cannot be created or destroyed.

mayorbill11
January 12th, 2005, 04:24 PM
Fat

mayorbill11
January 12th, 2005, 04:26 PM
Fat. :D

--someone had to say it.

-IMF

I couldn't see the reply because the thread mode changed on me. :o

TechnoWraith
January 12th, 2005, 06:07 PM
Not to the nay-sayer of the group here:

But don't all the elements on the periodic table have to naturally exist? Or be artificially synthesized? Naquadah, on a technicality, doesn't exist except within the Stargate universe. I, too, think it would be pretty cool to add Naquadah to the periodic table, but I don't think that would happen because it "doesn't exist" so to speak. But then again, we can always make a "Stargate Periodic Table of Elements" where can add whatever elements we want, including Naquadah and even Naquadria. :)

By the way, all this chemistry talk is making my head hurt.... :D

sparky
January 12th, 2005, 06:47 PM
So, do we think that naquadria is an isotope of naquadah or another element? Personally, I think the writers imply that naquadria is a derivative of naquadah like plutonium is of uranium... Remember in 'Chain Reaction'...

(Note: Season 4 spoiler)

...that Teal'c is required to get weapons grade naquadah. In the real world weapons grade uranium (U 235?) is an isotope of Uranium 238, or vice-versa. ;).

Also, just in case you were interested this web page (http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/AtWt/element.html) (http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/AtWt/element.html) about really heavy atomic weights suggests the writers have been in a few chemistry classes. Element 130 is Untrinilium, which sounds familiar to trinium in the show, and element 140 is Unquadnilium which sounds familiar to naquadah. Maybe this means that naquadah is in the 140's as far as atomic numbers are concerned?

Jarnin
January 12th, 2005, 09:53 PM
The reason there is no Naquadah in our solar system is due entirely to the mass of the star that created our solar system. See, about 5-10 billion years ago, there was this giant star that existed somewhere near here. When that star went supernova, it exploded creating a large cloud of gas and dust that eventually formed our sun and the planets of our solar system.
All elements in our solar system would have been made by that massive star, including the iron and carbon that makes up your body.

Since we know Naquadah doesn't exist naturally in our solar system, it means that the massive star that existed before Sol wasn't massive enough to fuse naquadah, thus we have no naturally occuring naquadah in our system.

However, there is a rather large (137km) asteroid floating around out there that was composed of 45% naquadah. With the need for naquadah to build BC-303s ("Enemy Mine"), you'd think they'd have gone out there and mined that rock already.

Beatrice Otter
January 13th, 2005, 03:53 PM
Not to the nay-sayer of the group here:

But don't all the elements on the periodic table have to naturally exist? Or be artificially synthesized? Naquadah, on a technicality, doesn't exist except within the Stargate universe. I, too, think it would be pretty cool to add Naquadah to the periodic table, but I don't think that would happen because it "doesn't exist" so to speak. But then again, we can always make a "Stargate Periodic Table of Elements" where can add whatever elements we want, including Naquadah and even Naquadria. :)

By the way, all this chemistry talk is making my head hurt.... :D
Um, yes, I believe we're all well aware of the fact that both Nq and Nr exist only within the Stargate universe and as such couldn't be added to the Periodic Table in RL. That's why it's being discussed in a Stargate forum ;).

Beatrice Otter
January 13th, 2005, 03:54 PM
The reason there is no Naquadah in our solar system is due entirely to the mass of the star that created our solar system. See, about 5-10 billion years ago, there was this giant star that existed somewhere near here. When that star went supernova, it exploded creating a large cloud of gas and dust that eventually formed our sun and the planets of our solar system.
All elements in our solar system would have been made by that massive star, including the iron and carbon that makes up your body.

Since we know Naquadah doesn't exist naturally in our solar system, it means that the massive star that existed before Sol wasn't massive enough to fuse naquadah, thus we have no naturally occuring naquadah in our system.

However, there is a rather large (137km) asteroid floating around out there that was composed of 45% naquadah. With the need for naquadah to build BC-303s ("Enemy Mine"), you'd think they'd have gone out there and mined that rock already.
Huh? How do we know there's an asteroid like that out there?

aAnubiSs
January 13th, 2005, 04:02 PM
Huh? How do we know there's an asteroid like that out there?

Did we skip Fail Safe in Seaon 5?:)

sparky
January 13th, 2005, 11:21 PM
The fact that they haven't tried to mine it and what happens when you walk through the wrong side of a stargate are probably two of the biggest questions I'd like to have answered.

Mr Prophet
January 14th, 2005, 08:27 AM
However, there is a rather large (137km) asteroid floating around out there that was composed of 45% naquadah. With the need for naquadah to build BC-303s ("Enemy Mine"), you'd think they'd have gone out there and mined that rock already.

Well, aside from the fact that the SGC have sneck-all space mining capability and no spacebound heavy transport vessels, the Tok'ra probably ponced it while they were shuttling SG-1 home.

You can just see the looks of feigned innocence on the Council's faces as they ask: "You lost what? An eighty-five mile asteroid? How careless."

Beatrice Otter
January 14th, 2005, 10:24 AM
Did we skip Fail Safe in Seaon 5?:)
Oh ... right. :o I've seen it, but it's been a while, and I completely forgot about the Nq on that asteroid. Thanks.

Beatrice Otter
January 14th, 2005, 10:27 AM
Well, aside from the fact that the SGC have sneck-all space mining capability and no spacebound heavy transport vessels, the Tok'ra probably ponced it while they were shuttling SG-1 home.

You can just see the looks of feigned innocence on the Council's faces as they ask: "You lost what? An eighty-five mile asteroid? How careless."
::snicker:: Ooh, that's good.

Unfortunately for your theory, we've never seen anything which even hinted that the Tok'ra have any manufacturing capacity of their own. In fact, the frequency with which they must change bases and the small amount of equipment they take with them when they do indicates (to me, at any rate) that they have no manufacturing ability of their own. In which case, what would they do with it?

Mr Prophet
January 14th, 2005, 11:06 AM
::snicker:: Ooh, that's good.

Unfortunately for your theory, we've never seen anything which even hinted that the Tok'ra have any manufacturing capacity of their own. In fact, the frequency with which they must change bases and the small amount of equipment they take with them when they do indicates (to me, at any rate) that they have no manufacturing ability of their own. In which case, what would they do with it?

They have more chance of having - or at least getting - a space miner than Earth does.

Beatrice Otter
January 14th, 2005, 11:37 AM
True, they could pick it up lots easier. But then, how do they refine it? How do they take the refined Naquadah and make it into something? Without the facilities to do so, I just don't see it happening. And in an emergency evacuation of the kind the Tok'ra have so frequently, toting a huge asteroid around has got to slow you down, y'know?

LtNOWIS
January 14th, 2005, 12:15 PM
Also, just in case you were interested this web page (http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/AtWt/element.html) (http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/AtWt/element.html) about really heavy atomic weights suggests the writers have been in a few chemistry classes. Element 130 is Untrinilium, which sounds familiar to trinium in the show, and element 140 is Unquadnilium which sounds familiar to naquadah. Maybe this means that naquadah is in the 140's as far as atomic numbers are concerned?

Sorry, all unnamed elements that start with "Un" are named directly from Latin. See, Un means 1, quad means 4, nil means 0. Thus, Un-quad-nil-ium. Same with Untrilium. The problem with this system is that you sound stupid sounding out element 111, "unununium."

Mr Prophet
January 14th, 2005, 12:32 PM
True, they could pick it up lots easier. But then, how do they refine it? How do they take the refined Naquadah and make it into something? Without the facilities to do so, I just don't see it happening. And in an emergency evacuation of the kind the Tok'ra have so frequently, toting a huge asteroid around has got to slow you down, y'know?

Not if you put an engine on it; park up a few teltacs as temporary living space, slap a Stargate on the back of it and you don't need a planet.

If you'll excuse me, I have to go and make note of a plot bunny...

Beatrice Otter
January 14th, 2005, 12:44 PM
Not if you put an engine on it; park up a few teltacs as temporary living space, slap a Stargate on the back of it and you don't need a planet.

If you'll excuse me, I have to go and make note of a plot bunny...
Glad I could be of help, Mr. Prophet

iLemon
March 15th, 2005, 09:43 AM
I've read that to maintain a stable wormhole you need an anti-gravity material, which is Naquadah. And also the reason we havent got a Stargate yet is because an element like Naquadah hasn't been found yet, or that it doesn't exist.

Lord Osiris
March 15th, 2005, 10:09 AM
in upgrades u see 2 jaffa carrying 1 small slap of refined naquadah so i think in realit these are powerfull then all other current resources because to lift an lead bar u also need two men to lift it

BruceDickinson
March 15th, 2005, 10:27 AM
Perhaps it is a very cohesive element. As in, if there is a vein on a planet, it is the only location you will find it. And as far as it not making sense that more of it does not replenish itself, perhaps it requires very rare occurances to create the necessary conditions for it to form, such as a supernova.

Maybe when Naquadah is in a solar system during its early formation, it bonds together into an asteroid like cluster and when another body finally reaches a mass heavy enough to attract it, it crashess into the surface forming a localized deposit. It could posses certain properties that increase the likelyhood that it ends up on an Earthlike planet. That's all a half baked notion for sure, but maybe the logic works somehow...

Lord Osiris
March 15th, 2005, 10:33 AM
if that is supposed so we can assume that naquadah is formed in outerspace so we can search it in space rather than on planets

BruceDickinson
March 15th, 2005, 10:37 AM
if that is supposed so we can assume that naquadah is formed in outerspace so we can search it in space rather than on planets

Perhaps, if were to happen upon a solar system in the right stage of formation. But considering the volume of asteroid sized projectiles that would likely be crashin around through orbit, it may prove quite difficult... :S Besides the fact you would have to scan an area the size of a solar system as opposed to scanning a planet, and also considering most solar systems would likely have no Naquadah, it may prove quite impossible.

Lord Osiris
March 15th, 2005, 10:40 AM
your absolutely right we could have an problem with an naquadah astroid but whe could search for pure naquadah on inhabital planets so we can have an deposit first

BruceDickinson
March 15th, 2005, 10:44 AM
your absolutely right we could have an problem with an naquadah astroid but whe could search for pure naquadah on inhabital planets so we can have an deposit first

Right, but considering the billions upon billions of star sytems in just our galaxy, coming up with an efficient method to search for an extremely rare element would probably prove the most difficult problem of any.

It seems the Goa'uld have relied soley on systematic searching of gate network solar systems to find their supply of the resource, and even then, they are doing it in areas likely scoured by the Ancients and other races before them.

Lord Osiris
March 15th, 2005, 10:52 AM
maybe goa'uld techniscians have made an computer algorithm to search for possible repositories because u only have to know the gate locations, star constellations and the naquadah element

VirtualCLD
March 15th, 2005, 11:50 AM
Going back to the original topic adressing the fact that these very heavy elements appear to be so unstable that they can only be created in a lab for a very short time:

I have heard of a theory, prior to Stargate, that at some point, these heavy elements become stable again (some large atomic number) and therfore they can exist by themselves indefinately (i.e. they don't breakdown in a few milli or microseconds). Therefore, if this is correct, it is entirely possible that Naquada ha a large enough atomic weight that it is stable.


EDIT: That doesn't sound like it should. OK, when I said they "become stable again" I don't mean that element 123 eventually becomes stable on it's own, I mean that as you go up the "theoretical periodic table of elements" the elements become unstable and then become stable again (say 160 or 170, I don't know an exact number). Therfore, if Naquada has a large enough atomic number, than maybe it is stable and can exist for very long periods of time.

Darkdreams
March 15th, 2005, 02:58 PM
Nope, not necessarily. Besides the fact that Nh is referred to numerous times as an element, Naquadriah could very well be an unstable isotope of it. (Or it could be some form of compound, but an unstable isotope seems more likely to me.) As an isotope, it could have its own name (and even chemical symbol); Deuterium (a hydrogen isotope; D) does, after all. Howabout Nh for naquadah, and Nq for Naquadria?


As Jack would say "Carter?" ok the stuff the gou'ld use.

Magnus
March 15th, 2005, 03:06 PM
If we're talking about a mineral then refining would be freeing from impurities. Raw naquadah might well be an ore, in which case it would be a compound, not dissimilar to haematite, or simply a mixture of naquadah and assorted impurities.

Naquadriah would have the same atomic number as naquadah, but most likely a higher atomic weight, since the description of it is most compatible with an unstable isotope, rather than a separate element.

Finally, remember that naquadah makes a tragic mockery of about 90% of conventional physical laws.
I agree, especially about naquadriah being an unstable isotope of naquadah.

Agent_Dark
March 15th, 2005, 03:46 PM
I have this document that I found ages ago that went into alot of scientific detail on where naquadah fits into the periodic table and such. I have no idea who authored it (not me lol, It's quite abit beyond my year10 chemistry class ;)). Its kinda old now, but it might interesting to some of you guys.

Stargate Theories.doc (http://www.users.on.net/%7Eroscholler/Stargate_theories.doc)

Beatrice Otter
March 15th, 2005, 05:37 PM
I have this document that I found ages ago that went into alot of scientific detail on where naquadah fits into the periodic table and such. I have no idea who authored it (not me lol, It's quite abit beyond my year10 chemistry class ;)). Its kinda old now, but it might interesting to some of you guys.

Stargate Theories.doc (http://www.users.on.net/%7Eroscholler/Stargate_theories.doc)
Oooh! Cool. Thanks. Any idea what message board it was first posted to?

Agent_Dark
March 15th, 2005, 06:04 PM
Oooh! Cool. Thanks. Any idea what message board it was first posted to?
No :(

iLemon
March 16th, 2005, 06:28 AM
How can an atom with an atomic weight of 160 be stable? How would the nucleus keep all those electrons in?? The shielding effect of the protons only goes so far

And thanks for the Stargate Theories, its interesting but since I'm only in my first year of Chem A level, I think I'll read it next year.

shinyredpants
March 16th, 2005, 01:19 PM
that...stargate theories thing was cool...but man someone has waaay too much time on their hands hahaha.

i dunno...i've heard the rumors about elements being stable once again in the high numbers, i was a chemistry major for a couple of years but i really dont remember much of it...

Steam
March 17th, 2005, 08:20 AM
Exactly. Assuming that there ever was naq in our solar system, which, according to show canon, there is not, and assuming the Ancients were somehow able to mine every last gram of the stuff from Earth, more would have eventually made its way to the surface of planets from the crucible of Earth's core in the millions of years since the Ancients would have stopped mining it here. This very fact proves, to me, at least, that the Ancients are not native to Earth.
why does that prove they are not native to earth? just because they didnt get naquidah from earth doesnt mean they didnt come from here, the stargates were made well after the ancients had faster than light engines etc to be able to place the stargates around the galaxy, and there for they could have found naquidah on a different planet while just exploring

Tok'Ra Hostess
March 17th, 2005, 08:45 AM
..., the stargates were made well after the ancients had faster than light engines etc to be able to place the stargates around the galaxy,...

Really?

VirtualCLD
March 17th, 2005, 09:21 AM
How can an atom with an atomic weight of 160 be stable? How would the nucleus keep all those electrons in?? The shielding effect of the protons only goes so far

It was just a theory I heard once in physics class, I'm not saying it's true, but right now we can't prove it one way or another. I don't know who to believe more, a physicist or a chemist, but the EE in me would want to trust a quantum physicist more.

Steam
March 17th, 2005, 03:48 PM
Really?
well of course, how else would they have been able to plant the stargates on different planets, they cant gate to a planet and put a gate there, they would have to have ships that could travel huge distances in the first place, the gate system was basicly a shortcut for the ancients

Tok'Ra Hostess
March 17th, 2005, 04:05 PM
well of course, how else would they have been able to plant the stargates on different planets, they cant gate to a planet and put a gate there, they would have to have ships that could travel huge distances in the first place, the gate system was basicly a shortcut for the ancients

Ah, but just because we don't know "how else" doesn't mean that there isn't... a... how else.

Does it? :p

It's like saying that no one could have populated the Pacific islands without large ocean-going vessels, or that the only way to get to the Americas from Eurasia was by ship, whereas in actual fact all these land masses held quite healthy populations long before large ocean-going vessels ever touched their shores.

By "really?" I meant was there an ep where what you state is mentioned? :)

Excali5033
March 19th, 2005, 02:03 AM
Heh, I'm surprised nobody's made the Element 115 reference yet. It's used in UFO mythology a lot, as a power source for interstellar travel. As far as I recall, it's theorized to be a stable element (i.e., non-radioactive) but capable of unleashing vast amounts of energy. Sounds like a ringer for that magic black stuff.

iLemon
September 6th, 2005, 05:07 AM
Exactly. Assuming that there ever was naq in our solar system, which, according to show canon, there is not, and assuming the Ancients were somehow able to mine every last gram of the stuff from Earth, more would have eventually made its way to the surface of planets from the crucible of Earth's core in the millions of years since the Ancients would have stopped mining it here. This very fact proves, to me, at least, that the Ancients are not native to Earth.
Nq doesnt have to have originated on Earth, it couldve arrived on Earth via a comet millions/billions of years ago.

IMForeman
September 6th, 2005, 06:34 AM
Heh, I'm surprised nobody's made the Element 115 reference yet. It's used in UFO mythology a lot, as a power source for interstellar travel. As far as I recall, it's theorized to be a stable element (i.e., non-radioactive) but capable of unleashing vast amounts of energy. Sounds like a ringer for that magic black stuff.

And while we're on it, does anyone think BSG's Tyllium is their name for Naquadah?

-IMF

Tok'Ra Hostess
September 6th, 2005, 07:32 AM
Nq doesnt have to have originated on Earth, it couldve arrived on Earth via a comet millions/billions of years ago.

The Sudbury impact crater is 4 billion years old. It's huge, you can see it easily from satalite and we're still mining its mineral riches after 200 years. Eventually we may mine it dry, but evidence of its existence would still be there even if our descendants filled in the hole. Why? Because of the way that the heat and pressure of the impact changed the structure of the native soil structure.

If there was a naq asteroid impact on Earth we would have found evidence of it, even if the Ancients had mined it clean of naq.

Stricken
September 6th, 2005, 08:32 AM
Remeber we dont know if it is called Naquadah thats what the Goa'ulds called it, for all we know that could be a translation of an Ancient (Alteran) Word, after all the gate has naquadah in it and that was made by the Ancients

(Maybe we should go back in time and ask! :D:D:D:D)

Mr Prophet
September 6th, 2005, 09:49 AM
And while we're on it, does anyone think BSG's Tyllium is their name for Naquadah?

It's all just isotopes of Plotnium.

Avatar28
September 6th, 2005, 05:57 PM
Well, I'm a bit of a johnny come-lately to this thread, but here goes.

First, while naquadria can be derived from naquada, I THINK that it's been stated by Carter or someone as being another element. If that's the case, it's likely that it's derived from Naquada in much the same way as Plutonium is derived from Uranium.

This would especially make sense since you have weapons grade naquada. Using uranium as an example, uranium naturally occurs with different isotopes mixed together. Most of it is plain U-238 with a small amount of U-235 (approximately .7%). To make weapons grade Uranium, you have to seperate the two to increase the percentage of U-235. Weapon's grade uranium is typically about 80-85% U-235. It seems probable that naquada is similar and one of the isotopes is more unstable and thus fissionable.

Trinium is NOT a superheavy element. It's apparently just something the producers pulled out of thin air. It's been stated that it's superlight and superstrong.

Um, crap, I think there was some other stuff too but I forget what now. That's the most of it though.

Giantevilhead
September 6th, 2005, 07:15 PM
Trinium could just have a really low density.

Wandering Tamer
September 8th, 2005, 07:23 PM
Wow, I am a nerd. I just read this entire thread.

Anyway, it's rare to find any element in nature that is pure. There is always some level of contamination. So, naquadah could be found naturally bonded with another element and so purifying it till it's in a usable form.

As for the naquardiah, I don't think that's an element, so much as a dirivative of naquadah. Pressure and time are basically geology; pressure and time is all it takes. Enough of it on naquadah and you could get naquadriah.

Unless.... I think I might have missed something during that last episode with Jonas.

sparky
September 9th, 2005, 08:58 PM
Anyway, it's rare to find any element in nature that is pure. There is always some level of contamination.

Intersting point other heavy elements like uranium are found in ores (like uranium oxides). It would be intersting to see if naquadah has to be refined or if its pure...

On another note, (my apologies if this has already been discussed) has anyone thought about whether liquid naquadah is also another element, an isotope or just a solution of naquadah? I'm leaning more towards solution.

iLemon
September 10th, 2005, 04:40 AM
If there was a naq asteroid impact on Earth we would have found evidence of it, even if the Ancients had mined it clean of naq.
But how would you know it had Naquadah in it if it was wiped clean?

sparky
September 10th, 2005, 06:16 AM
But how would you know it had Naquadah in it if it was wiped clean?

Presumably there would still be trace amounts leftover that wouldn't be worth the time and effort mining? I seem to remember some episodes where Daniel Jackson could do soil tests for naquadah.

Tok'Ra Hostess
September 10th, 2005, 09:06 AM
But how would you know it had Naquadah in it if it was wiped clean?

You know that something was there by1) physical remains of the substance, or, 2) the effects the substence had on its environment.

Assuming that the Ancients had been able to locate and remove every atom of naquadah from Earth's soil, the type of crater a naq asteroid would have created would have been significantly different from the type made by a mostly nickel asteroid like the Sudbury astrobleme, not just in the size of the astrobleme, but in how the impact changed the basic structure of the native rock and even the local gravity. The naq impact crater would have left a fingerprint, if you will, that would be unique to it. There would be no other type of craters to compare, which fact would make geologists aware that something used to be here that isn't, now.

Gargen
September 10th, 2005, 09:44 AM
I dont really know what it would be but it would be very high one would venture to guess

Beatrice Otter
September 12th, 2005, 01:07 PM
Intersting point other heavy elements like uranium are found in ores (like uranium oxides). It would be intersting to see if naquadah has to be refined or if its pure...

On another note, (my apologies if this has already been discussed) has anyone thought about whether liquid naquadah is also another element, an isotope or just a solution of naquadah? I'm leaning more towards solution.
Its gotta be refined. Remember Orpheus? That prison planet was a Naquadah refinery. Not to mention numerous mentions of "refined" or "weapons-grade" Naquadah.

If liquid Naquadah were another element, it wouldn't be called the same thing, right? I've always wondered if it were maybe Nq hot enough to have melted, then kept at that temp using some kind of forcefield, but that's purely a WAG based on the fact that "liquid" implies to me that the chemical is the same, it's just in a different physical form--e.g. liquid ice is just water, and liquid gold is, well, melted.

Ollock
September 12th, 2005, 05:29 PM
Its gotta be refined. Remember Orpheus? That prison planet was a Naquadah refinery. Not to mention numerous mentions of "refined" or "weapons-grade" Naquadah.

If liquid Naquadah were another element, it wouldn't be called the same thing, right? I've always wondered if it were maybe Nq hot enough to have melted, then kept at that temp using some kind of forcefield, but that's purely a WAG based on the fact that "liquid" implies to me that the chemical is the same, it's just in a different physical form--e.g. liquid ice is just water, and liquid gold is, well, melted.

It would most likely be a solution. Such a heavy metal would have an insanely high melting point, and given that it is a power scource, the power needed to maintain that temerature would likely negate the benefits of melting it. Besides, it appears to be a greenish color, rather than the glowing white-hot appearance one would expect from something at such a n incredibly high temperature.

ArticWarrior
January 28th, 2010, 04:31 PM
Well i would have to say that the reason naq is no longer here on eath is the fact that if naq has a higher atomic weight then the rate of decay wouldnt allow any more to naturally form after the amount was used up that came from the big bang. so if we nedd to prove that naq was possible the hadron collider would be the only way to prove it sort of going out of our solar system.

lordofseas
January 28th, 2010, 08:17 PM
Well, I'm a bit of a johnny come-lately to this thread, but here goes.

First, while naquadria can be derived from naquada, I THINK that it's been stated by Carter or someone as being another element. If that's the case, it's likely that it's derived from Naquada in much the same way as Plutonium is derived from Uranium.

This would especially make sense since you have weapons grade naquada. Using uranium as an example, uranium naturally occurs with different isotopes mixed together. Most of it is plain U-238 with a small amount of U-235 (approximately .7%). To make weapons grade Uranium, you have to seperate the two to increase the percentage of U-235. Weapon's grade uranium is typically about 80-85% U-235. It seems probable that naquada is similar and one of the isotopes is more unstable and thus fissionable.

Trinium is NOT a superheavy element. It's apparently just something the producers pulled out of thin air. It's been stated that it's superlight and superstrong.

Um, crap, I think there was some other stuff too but I forget what now. That's the most of it though.

Quotes?

Eberhardt
January 31st, 2010, 10:09 PM
The problem with this system is that you sound stupid sounding out element 111, "unununium." That was my favorite element... until they changed it to Roentgenium...

Cmdr. Setsuna F. Seyei
February 6th, 2010, 08:15 PM
Well i would have to say that the reason naq is no longer here on eath is the fact that if naq has a higher atomic weight then the rate of decay wouldnt allow any more to naturally form after the amount was used up that came from the big bang. so if we nedd to prove that naq was possible the hadron collider would be the only way to prove it sort of going out of our solar system.

ummm scientists have theorized that after a certain point on the periodic table of elements (around the # 220) many of the so called super heavies become essentially as stable as those like hydrogen or oxygen and have a very low rate of decay as naquada is still being found on planets and in massive enough quantities the rate of decay would have to be low therefore the atomic # assigned to naquada would have to be somewhere in the mid 200' to the low 300's

thekillman
February 7th, 2010, 04:34 AM
where did you read that?

last time i checked, physicists theorised that about atomic number 174 or so, atoms simply can not exist due to the relativistic effects.

but we don;t really know