User talk:Nb07wiki

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Nb07wiki}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Images

I wonder if you could also find images of promethium, astatine or actinium? Those last three elements have been fooling us many times with fake images. Double sharp (talk) 07:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking for them myself, but I can only find pictures of compounds (or, in astatine's case, nothing). Here's a site with some decent images, though: http://gotexassoccer.com/elements/index.htm Nb07wiki (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That site has been very useful in helping us with the last few images, and I have uploaded some images from there. Unfortunately, it does not give any images of pure Pm, At or Ac. Double sharp (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francium is now also needed. Double sharp (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do, but I'm not having much luck with these elements. I think those francium images were the best we were going to get. Nb07wiki (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally occurring isotopes of transplutonium elements

Thank you Double sharp (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other natural isotopes of the earlier actinides not listed in Actinide#Properties? (There might be some others for Pu.) Double sharp (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to see which ones are listed, so here are all the ones I can find from Ac to Pu:
- Ac - 225, 227, 228 (3 isotopes)
- Th - 226 to 232, 234 and 235 (9 isotopes)
- Pa - 231, 233 - 236 (5 isotopes)
- U - 232 to 240 (9 isotopes)
- Np - 237 to 240 (4 isotopes)
- Pu - 239, 242 and 244 (3 isotopes) + the plutonium page also lists (with sources) 238 and 240, bringing the total to 5 isotopes.

Not sure if all this is already covered, but here it is anyway :) Nb07wiki (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previously the article didn't list the natural isotopes, but now it does. (Would it be too much to ask for a complete list of all isotopes listed as natural in the book? It would really help update many of the isotope pages with new information and would finalize all the changes to list of nuclides and radioisotope.) Also, I can't find the listings of ²³⁸Pu and ²⁴⁰Pu as natural on the plutonium article. Could you help me find them? Double sharp (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will try my hardest to make a list, but as it is a long process and I'm busy with studies it may take a while. I'll do my best :) Also, from the plutonium article, under "Occurence":

"Since the relatively long-lived isotope plutonium-240 occurs in the decay chain of plutonium-244 it should also be present, albeit 10,000 times rarer still. Finally, exceedingly small amounts of plutonium-238, attributed to the incredibly rare double beta decay of uranium-238, have been found in natural uranium samples."

That's what I read, and just one source (48) is listed. Nb07wiki (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the source into actinide. Double sharp (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soon I'll try and start working on the list of all naturally occuring isotopes, which will be located here. Nb07wiki (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the book was found to be so useful, could I ask you to check astatine? The article lists 6 (214 through 219), but I want to know if there are more. If there are, would you mind adding the production reactions (if given)? Thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book only lists four (215, 217-219) which it seems the article already lists. The book simply states what the isotopes are, and no reactions are given, so I'm afraid I can't help you there :( Nb07wiki (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you very much anyway :-) Should note the possibility of informing the author about the missing isotopes--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Yes, I have considered doing that, as well as the fact that there may be a natural einsteinium isotope, as listed here. Nb07wiki (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscovered (trans-ununoctium) elements

This page states that the 2011 edition of Nature's Building Blocks includes sections on all the elements up to unbiseptium (Ubs, element 127). As elements 123, 125 and 127 have no articles on Wikipedia, could you check if there is anything worth including from the book? (You could also use the book to help improve the other articles on undiscovered elements: 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 126 and, if possible, 137.) Double sharp (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the book has few details on these later elements, but I'll have a read and see what I can find. Nb07wiki (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be nothing important on the non-article elements (unless you include the fact that element 123 was mentioned in Star Trek), but I've only just noticed now that the book contains information, starting from ununtrium and onwards, that should be in some of the the articles. I'll add this information as soon as I can. I've had a check of other synthetic elements less than 113 and pretty much everything's covered, but I'll get around to adding anything that's not. Also, the books states that "growing evidence" suggests that element 128 is the last on the periodic table (it states this under the chapter on element 127), no longer 137 as we currently have written. Is it worth rewriting this? Nb07wiki (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sources does it give for this "growing evidence", if any? This sounds very interesting. Double sharp (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the paragraph is not very detailed. It doesn't cite any source (the whole book doesn't either; it just has a massive bibliography at the back in a random order), and is the information on the last element is in only two sentences of this paragraph. The first just says there is "growing evidence" to suggest it is the end, and the second says "the nuclear shell of element 126 might confer some relative stability on neighbouring elements so that possibly 127 and 128 might exist, but this latter one (unbioctium) would probably mark the end of the periodic table." That's all it says, not sure if it's reliable enough to add, unless you go by the fact that the book is more recent than most other publications. Nb07wiki (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could add information saying that this book states that Ubo would probably be the last element, but try to make sure it doesn't sound like completely accepted fact. Double sharp (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's probably the best way to add it to the article. I'm not sure if it's 100% fact, but it is verifiable. Other than that, I'll add all the relavant information about the unnamed elements to the respective articles tomorrow, and I think all that leaves in the Nature's Building Blocks book is the natural isotopes, which I'll do ASAP (unless there was something else that needed checking in the book? Just let me know) Nb07wiki (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you We probably don't need anything else from the book for now, but you can use the book to expand the content of some of the more stubby element articles. Double sharp (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"no longer 137 as we currently have written" - do we? E.g. in Extended periodic table we give 173 as the highest possible element. 137 was formerly thought to be the highest (using the Bohr model or even the "classical" atomic structure), but detailed quantum theoretical investigation raises the limit to 173. Anyway, I think the 128 claim is noteworthy to add. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, it was 173. But maybe it is worth a mention as the source is quite recent. Additionally, I will get around to filling in those details as promised above, I've just been a bit busy recently with studies. Nb07wiki (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Walter Greiner claims that there is no end to the periodic table. An infinite number of elements seems unlikely(!), but it seems as though 173 is not actually a limit (see Extended periodic table). Double sharp (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Nb07wiki. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Pictures#Copyright issues.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Double sharp (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Element picture progress

I've added some comments to this page. Double sharp (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for a flagship article

Hello. You haven't yet voted for a flagship article for WP:ELEM. If you want to vote, please do so before the end of March. Thank you, Double sharp (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, all done :) Nb07wiki (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I noticed you participated in the Deadmau5/Deadmaus RM and I was wondering if you were willing to leave your two cents here at Talk:Tech Nine#Requested move 2 to overturn another horrible move based on a name no reliable sources refer to the subject as. I am just trying to get consensus to move it back to Tech N9ne in the same manner Deadmau5 was moved back. STATic message me! 15:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]