Talk:Isotopes of livermorium
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedList-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
This article is part ofWikipedia:Wikiproject Isotopes. Please keep style and phrasings consistent across the set of pages. For later reference and improved reliability, data from all considered multiple sources is collected here. References are denoted by these letters:
Z N refs symbol half-life spin excitation energy116 173 A* |Lv-289 |10# ms |5/2+#116 174 A |Lv-290 |50# ms |0+116 174 B |Lv-290 |15(+26-6) ms |0+116 175 A |Lv-291 |100# ms |116 175 B |Lv-291 |6.3(+116-25) ms |116 176 A |Lv-292 |120(100) ms |0+116 176 B |Lv-292 |18.0(+16-6) ms |0+116 176 C |Lv-292 |~0.03 s |116 177 B |Lv-293 |61(+57-20) ms |
Femto13:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6.3(+116-25) ?? what units?netdragon 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Could someone add ununhexium-289 (disc. 2011) to this table? This article might be dubious. --3.14159265358pi (talk)21:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that a similar activity was seen later from an experiment at Dubna trying to make element 116, I wonder if that was again the 2n channel leading to294Lv and its daughter290Fl. But this is OR for now, until we try for the 2n channel again or go for the heavy250Cm targets!Double sharp (talk)07:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was another mystery chain at the GSI-SHIP in 2012 (chain 1 inthis paper). This was once again from the248Cm+48Ca reaction. The decay energies do not match Kaji et al.'s 2017 paper which they tentatively assign to294Lv; but the first alpha decay matches very well the expected value they give for the missing first alpha from294Lv in their investigation of the same reaction at RIKEN. Hofmann et al. (in the 2012 paper) propose four possible reactions leading to this: 2n, pn, p2n, and p3n, which would lead to294Lv,294Mc,293Mc, and292Mc respectively, all of which are unknown. Now, the cross-sections for most of these side-channels involving proton evaporation seem too high to be expected (except perhaps the p2n channel), but cannot be excluded entirely. I guess it is possible that we are seeing another chain starting at294Lv and electron capturing at290Fl, once again going down to278Bh, but with different isomers along the way, and perhaps with some gamma decay or internal conversion along the way explaining the differing decay energies; the first would explain why the half-lives seem to be a lot shorter than those in the first Dubna chain that has been variously assigned tentatively to290Fl, but we are once again engaging in the unlikely pursuit of postulating a whole chain of isomers.
I'll stop speculating here on the talk page, since I am not in the field and am quite likely just committing errors that anyone actually in it would notice (and if they are, I plead interest in learning and communication on their inspirational efforts to probe the limits of matter). I guess the main lesson here is that we should keep working on this and other reactions leading to the most neutron-rich nuclei we can get to, now that the electron-capturing region is at hand, and find all those rare channels and rare decay branches. The current picture we have of clear alpha-decay chains terminating at spontaneously fissioning nuclides is a little worrying: it just seems too neat, which we would not expect especially for nuclides with oddZ orN.Double sharp (talk)16:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links onIsotopes of livermorium. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis 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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)14:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
