Talk:Unbinilium

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)