Talk:Tennessine/Archive 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

The information of Uus is hypothetical

Look this page: apsidium - ununseptium here, at the bottom, you can read that ununseptium has NOT been produced. In some sites you can find hypotetical isotopes for Uus.


DePiep (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC): Late sign(-date), for archiving: Section added at [1] 1 December 2005

Nuclide chart deeply problematic

The chart seems to show half-lives in the island of stability of greater than one year. So far as I'm aware, none of the nuclides in the island of stability have half-lives of as much as a second. Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not "deeply problematic." The data in that chart is theoretical, only overlaid with experimental where possible. "Characterized isotopes are shown with borders" -- this phrase in the caption is supposed to help readers understand that (as you can see, most isotopes don't have borders in that graph, thus they're not actually characterized). Think about it for another second and if you still think the wording is poor and you can do better, you're welcome to try.--R8R (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The filled squares are the known isotopes to the left of the island, which still remains undiscovered, even though we're now at least sure that it is there around the unknown region of 291Cn and 293Cn. These two nuclides are expected to have half-lives of about 1200 years. Double sharp (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

"penultimate element of the 7th period of the periodic table"

@NameNameLikeWha: Please have a look at the periodic table, I don't know what makes you think tennessine is the last in the seventh period when oganesson is still in the seventh period. And in case you're wondering, "period" refers to the row not the column.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

"@Jasper Deng: Thank you for pointing that out. I had misread the article and thought it had said "group," not "period." I apologize for causing you inconvenience, and I understand now.--NameNameLikeWha (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)"

Restoring toponyms

Tennessee -> Tennessee, United States

The point is that not everyone knows where Tennessee is. Of course, this would be negligible if we were talking about some American-specific topic, but this one isn't. But this is actually the case, among native speakers, too: consider people in India or Africa; you can't expect them to know where the state is. Is this the U.S. or Canada? Or is it Australia? Also, I believe it is best to keep places described all in the same way.

Lesnoy, Sverdlovsk Oblast -> Lesnoy, Sverdlovsk Oblast

I see no benefit here. We lose a wikilink with a map in the flashcard for desktop users for what? So, I believe, many people won't know where "Lesnoy, Sverdlovsk Oblast" is, but it helps if they see a flashcard with a map of the region.

I genuinely see no benefits from removing these links; quite the opposite.--R8R (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tennessine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tennessine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tennessine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Number of atoms and isotopes

According to [2], 22 atoms of tennessine have been reported: 16 with short decay chains assigned to 293Ts and 6 with long decay chains assigned to 294Ts. However, in [3] it is shown that the set of 16 short chains is not congruent. It seems to me that the 2013 set corresponds to 292Ts (5n channel). My questions:

Do set 2010+set 2012+D3 form a congruent set?
Do set 2013+13×short+96×long form a congruent set? Burzuchius (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
This is very interesting indeed and I do find it very concerning given that this was the only argument for the discovery of Mc and Ts. (Nh from the RIKEN data is not in question, and there is no chance for this kind of thing in Og, which was created as an even-even isotope.) Maybe soon we'll have more comments on this analysis (which I notice has scientists from Lund and the GSI). Double sharp (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and yes, the article seems to say that some of the "short" chains from element 115 assigned to 289Mc may actually be from 288Mc (leading to spontaneous-fission, prompt or delayed, by the daughters 284Nh and 280Rg). This seems to suggest that the element 117 chains that feed into them may really be from 292Ts, just as you say. (And I think these new results should be put into the article!) Double sharp (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Now it seems to me that the alleged 277Mt is in fact 276Hs, from ...280Rg(EC)280Ds(α)276Hs(SF).Burzuchius (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
That seems quite plausible. I was wondering for a while how 277Mt could have such a low fission barrier in spite of the odd proton, but if it were 276Hs there is no problem (like the known 282Cn, 284Cn, and 284Fl). Double sharp (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
In a new 2017 paper on the 248Cm+48Ca reaction the team at RIKEN has detected 7 new decay chains: one of them appears to start at 292Lv and then alpha decay all the way to 280Ds (t1/2 = 6.7 ms, using ln 2 as a conversion factor from their provided lifetime). The partial SF half-life theoretically expected for this nuclide (12 ms) is significantly shorter than the alpha half-life (811 ms): still, both are short, so an alpha decay to 276Hs still seems within plausibility if 280Ds is being populated in the moscovium experiments via electron capture of 280Rg.
There is also a report of a possible chain in the 2n channel leading to 294Lv, fissioning at 286Cn. This last nuclide should have a significant alpha branching, and the half-lives observed seem to make this assignment plausible for some of those 294Ts chains. Now that we have passed N = 176, EC should be on a par with alpha decay as a decay mode; we now need to be able to observe those characteristic X-ray lines more than ever. This new RIKEN experiment is an excellent step in the direction of going for new neutron-rich isotopes with low beam energies and sorting out this mess; hopefully soon we shall get cross-bombardments for Ts and Mc, as well as clarifications on the as yet uncharacterised 292Ts and 295Ts isotopes. The latter can be made in the 2n channel (kind of like going for 290Fl and 294Lv); the former is perhaps best made when going for its parent 296119. (Oh, 291Ts would clarify things too, and even lighter ones might be made via 243Am+50Ti.) Double sharp (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Some of the short decay chains have rather long lifetimes and I would almost be tempted to say that some chains assigned to 293Ts might have 294Ts as the correct assignment. The premature termination of the chain before it reaches Db would then be explained by EC branches in these odd-odd nuclei leading to 294Lv or perhaps its daughters, before reaching the area of SF instability around N=170 at 282Ds or 278Hs. But this is all OR until we reexamine these reactions and get more data - hopefully soon including EC detection. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, one problem with that is that it seems to necessitate the production of 290Mc in a 1n reaction. Such is the trouble with OR. I suppose we'll have to wait for more reactions to be conducted in this region (maybe also involving future E119) to get real, sourced answers. Double sharp (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

[4] Here is a paper containing a response to these criticisms from some members of the Dubna team. Double sharp (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Added! Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
A few more reactions that would help to shed some light on this would be 249Bk+48Ca at some other beam energies (perhaps aiming for the 2n or 5n channels), as well as making isotopes 295 through 299 of element 119 in the 249Bk+50Ti (or 248Cm+51V) and possibly 254Es+48Ca. Unfortunately 294Lv and 290Fl cannot quite be so easily examined; one would have to aim for the 2n channel, because the 257Fm+48Ca reaction is today no more than a beautiful dream. Double sharp (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

How would TsF
3 even be predicted if AtF
n aren't (n=1, 3, 5, 7)?

If AtF, AtF
3, AtF
5, AtF
7 aren't predicted, how would TsF
3?

There probably are astatine fluorides, but they are likely to be ionic rather than covalent compounds. Like RnF2 the lower fluorides should not be volatile, explaining why they so far have not been observed by authors expecting a volatile fluoride: radon is hard to oxidise to higher fluorides, which would be volatile, for kinetic reasons and it seems likely that something similar happens for astatine. Tennessine fluorides should exist; the most stable is probably TsF3 as +3 should be the most stable oxidation state of Ts (which is rather analogous to Ga). It is likely an ionic compound, but that doesn't mean you can't also have a TsF3 molecule. Gaseous NaCl is mostly monomeric molecules with some Na2Cl2 dimers. Double sharp (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Tennessine/Archive_2"