Talk:Unbinilium

Unbinilium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 23, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Most stable isotope

Currently, the infobox says mass number=320 for the most stable isotope. However, that one is not listed in the infobox, nor mentioned in the text. ³⁰²Ubn is in text, but not in infobox. Unbiunium has similar issue. Can someone check these? -DePiep (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fricke (the source) predicts 320 without a half-life, same for elements 119 and 121. The information for nuclear properties is annoyingly scarce, and I decided to take whatever scraps I could find even if they did not always come accompanied by details. Double sharp (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK for me. Shouldn't they be added to the infobox (isotopes list), and be present in body text? BTW, the numbers mentioned are: E119: mn=315, E120: mn=320, E121: mn=320 (so different from what you wrote). E121 has source Amador, not Fricke. -DePiep (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't remember the details well enough, but the main point is correct. The trouble with adding them to the infobox is that without half-lives it would not say anything new – and likewise there is not really much to say in the body about it either. I guess I could add a sentence cited to the respective sources again that so-and-so predicts that 315 or 320 is the most stable isotope. Double sharp (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Double sharp (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have since changed this to include the possibly synthesised ²⁹⁹120, whose surprisingly long observed half-life might be explained by the formation of a high-spin isomer and consequently hindered alpha decay of ²⁹⁹120 and ²⁹⁵Og. Double sharp (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, that was probably a random sequence of events... Double sharp (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding possible target-projectile reactions for E120

I wonder if anyone has considered trying the ²⁴⁴Pu+⁶⁰Fe reaction, especially since ⁶⁰Fe and ¹⁰Be projectiles are being considered as long-lived radioactive beams. This is even better than the ²⁴⁸Cm+⁵⁴Cr and ²⁵¹Cf+⁵⁰Ti reactions that will be tried, as ²⁴⁴Pu+⁶⁰Fe gives the compound nucleus ³⁰⁴120* that hits the N = 184 shell closure, which should have some effect. It is even almost as good (except for the lowered asymmetry) as the beautiful dream ²⁵⁷Fm+⁴⁸Ca. So we could seriously think about making isotopes from ²⁹⁵120 all the way to ³⁰²120, which would give us a road open to the heavy Og isotopes ²⁹⁷Og and ²⁹⁸Og. Double sharp (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hey, someone has considered it! But it seems like the cross-section for producing ³⁰²120 in the 2n channel is not very good. (What about the 3n and 4n channels, though?) Double sharp (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

This article is not in my field. Just wondering, ComplexRational, what is the overarching rationale for the removal of the refs? It's past my bedtime.--Quisqualis (talk) 08:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Quisqualis: For the first ref (NUBASE), we have Template:NUBASE 2016 which is essentially an updated version of the old ref (NUBASE 2003) that still gives the same information. I then moved the statement "Isotopes of unbinilium are predicted to have alpha decay half-lives of the order of microseconds" to section Unbinilium#Nuclear stability and isotopes because it fits better in the prose there - along with other predictions, rather than in its previous location in the section about attempted nucleosynthesis (²⁴⁴Pu + ⁵⁸Fe) - which should give details about the specific experiments and only talk about decay properties if element 120 was observed, which was not the case. I hope this answers your question. ComplexRational (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Statement

This statement is incorrect - I don't know what the author was intending to say... No elements with atomic numbers above 82 (after lead) have stable isotopes 66.75.233.243 (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What might be the intended correct statement is...

No elements with atomic numbers above 92 (after uranium) have stable isotopes 66.75.233.243 (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

82 is the correct one. Elements with atomic numbers 83~92 (bismuth to uranium) all doesn't have any stable isotopes. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]