User talk:Double sharp: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Double sharp (talk | contribs) |
Double sharp (talk | contribs) Tag: Reverted |
||
| (48 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
== |
== World Chess Championship 2024 == |
||
Not everyone uses the word level to describe a tie. In America we don't. The article should reflect both usages. [[User:Briaboru|Briaboru]] ([[User talk:Briaboru|talk]]) 23:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I see you changing the split point 5 × 10<sup>8</sup> years to 10<sup>8</sup> years. But now, "Primordial radioactive nuclides (half-life > 10<sup>8</sup> years)" looks inconsistent: A radionuclide having suffered 9 half-lives would be primordial, but certainly not one that has suffered 45... [[Special:Contributions/103.166.228.86|103.166.228.86]] ([[User talk:103.166.228.86|talk]]) 18:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
:Well, current sensitivity is actually not that far off finding [[plutonium-244|<sup>244</sup>Pu]] (see the article): we're about an order of magnitude away. I won't be surprised if it really gets confirmed as primordial at some point (though maybe we need to wait another decade or two). Of course <sup>146</sup>Sm and <sup>244</sup>Pu will still not be useful primordials, but it'd be fun to have them back (for a while we had <sup>244</sup>Pu as primordial based on the 1971 result, that in retrospect cannot be right). :) [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp#top|talk]]) 04:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I would indeed be happy to see <sup>146</sup>Sm be confirmed as primordial, for the sake of completeness - the hole of even-even nuclides between <sup>144</sup>Sm and <sup>148</sup>Sm is just unbearable... [[Special:Contributions/129.104.241.231|129.104.241.231]] ([[User talk:129.104.241.231|talk]]) 00:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
::::The magic numbers only care about their own comfort and don't care about the lives of others :( [[Special:Contributions/129.104.241.231|129.104.241.231]] ([[User talk:129.104.241.231|talk]]) 11:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::The combo of ''Z'' = 82 and ''N'' = 126 is also harsh, killing Po~Ac with no mercy... :( [[User:Nucleus hydro elemon|Nucleus hydro elemon]] ([[User talk:Nucleus hydro elemon|talk]]) 15:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::But at least Ra gets enough beta-stable isotopes that it gets out of the killing zone of ''N'' = 126, with <sup>226</sup>Ra (''Z'' = 88, ''N'' = 138) able to have a respectable 1600-year half-life. :) |
|||
:::::Unfortunately, as if making new superheavies wasn't hard enough already, the 5g row will probably head straight into the firing squad of ''N'' = 184 when it comes to doing Cf+Ni for 126. :( [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp#top|talk]]) 15:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== About <sup>222</sup>Rn/<sup>222</sup>Fr == |
|||
Hi! I have just noticed the mass excess of <sup>222</sup>Rn given in NUBASE is 16372.0 ± 1.9 keV, while the mass excess of <sup>222</sup>Fr is 16378 ± 7 keV, corresponding to an atomic mass of 222.0175825(75) for <sup>222</sup>Fr. While the data are not decisive, <sup>222</sup>Rn has lower energy if we ignore the error margin. So what do you think of the status of <sup>222</sup>Rn? This will affect how we formulate in [[Isotopes of radon]] and [[Double beta decay]]. [[Special:Contributions/129.104.241.231|129.104.241.231]] ([[User talk:129.104.241.231|talk]]) 11:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I think we should leave it open still, since Belli et al. [https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.5844 explicitly predicted the single beta] of this isotope and tried to find it. I'm naturally quite curious which way round it'll go. :) [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp#top|talk]]) 13:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks! I added the source to both page I mentioned. [[Special:Contributions/129.104.241.231|129.104.241.231]] ([[User talk:129.104.241.231|talk]]) 15:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 05:16, 2 December 2024
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
World Chess Championship 2024
Not everyone uses the word level to describe a tie. In America we don't. The article should reflect both usages. Briaboru (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Briaboru: Interesting, I didn't know this. Changed it to "tied", which to me as BrE user is also understandable. Double sharp (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)