Talk:Isotopes of lithium: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:27, 11 November 2023

Elements: Isotopes List‑class Low‑importance

	Chemistry portal This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Isotope Taskforce.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Template:Vital article

Li8 Decay is Misleading

Li-8 decay is misleading. The footnote explains it's the equivalent of Spontaneous Fission with Positron emission, and lists the decay type as Alpha plus Beta- (positron). It seems to me it's more appropriate to say it uses Beta- plus Alpha decay and results in He4, not Be8. Does it spend any time at all in Be8, after all? TimeHorse (talk)

Discrepancy in Abundances

The table in the article gives: Li-6 4.85%, Li-7 95.15% The pie chart gives: Li-6 7.59%, Li-7 92.41% 45.49.245.43 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I have removed the (2013) pie chart, abundances have changed / become more precise since. Especially for lithium btw (complicated spread of un/natural occurrances). Standard atomic weight, AME, is more current data. Thanks for the report. DePiep (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage

Correct is — ⁶Li (7,5 %) and ⁷Li (92,5 %); incorrect — ⁶Li (4.85%) and ⁷Li (95.15%)! Why? Becouse standard atomic weight in first case will be 6.940037 and in second 6.967460. Please find source for second one. source for the first one is ruwiki. Surprizi (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

isotope	Z	N	atomic mass	% in nature	average
⁶Li	3	3	6.015122795(16)	7.59 %	0.456547
⁷Li	3	4	7.01600455(8)	92.41 %	6.483489
A_r°(Li)				100%	6.940037

If I am wrong, would you please help me to calculate standard atomic weight — 6.94.--Surprizi (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Lithium is an element with only two stable isotopes, 6Li and 7Li, and so there is only one stable isotope ratio involved (see Figure 1). The standard isotopic reference material for lithium,1 IRMM-016, has a measured stable isotope ratio that leads to a mole fraction for 6Li of 0.0759 (which corresponds to an isotopic abundance value of 7.59%) and a mole fraction for 7Li of 0.9241 (which corresponds to the isotopic abundance value of 92.41%). The product of each isotope’s atomic mass and its isotopic abundance, summed over both isotopes leads to a calculated value of 6.94 for the atomic weight of lithium"^[1]^[2]^[3].--Surprizi (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, incorrect ratio 4.85:95.15 is comming from the average of four numbers [0.019, 0.078] ([0.019+0.078]/2=4.85) and [0.922, 0.981] ([0.922+0.981]/2=95.15). Calculation this way is incorect, becouse [0.019, 0.078] and [0.922, 0.981] are range, not simple two and two numbers. Everithing will changed through this diapasons. In case if we had only two isotopes, then everybody will be correct. On this site on the right is link to original pdf file, where you can see illustrations and will find that Lithium are not only in two places.--Surprizi (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Lithium-5

I feel that Lithium-5 deserves more attention. The decay 2*Lithium-5 => Helium-4 + Lithium-6 is interesting because it is anomalous considering that Lithium-5 has a "magic" Neutron number and a N/Z ratio that is not unreasonable compared to Helium-3, yet undergoes nuclear action, despite Lithium-5 being the most reasonable candidate for a stable Isotope-5. 14.202.17.58 (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The Impact of Depleted 6Li on the Standard Atomic Weight of Lithium

[2] ATOMIC WEIGHT REPORTS

[3] LITHIUM

[1]

[2]

[3]

Revision as of 17:20, 11 November 2023 edit 14.202.17.58 (talk) →Lithium-5: deserves more attention Tag: New topic ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:27, 11 November 2023 edit undo 14.202.17.58 (talk) →Lithium-5: stability of N/Z ratio Next edit →
Line 69:		Line 69:
	== Lithium-5 ==		== Lithium-5 ==

	I feel that Lithium-5 deserves more attention. The decay 2*Lithium-5 => Helium-4 + Lithium-6 is interesting because it is anomalous considering that Lithium-5 has a "magic" Neutron number and a ~~reasonable~~ N/Z ratio yet undergoes nuclear action, ~~and this~~ despite Lithium-5 being the most reasonable candidate for a stable Isotope-5. [[Special:Contributions/14.202.17.58\|14.202.17.58]] ([[User talk:14.202.17.58\|talk]]) 17:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)		I feel that Lithium-5 deserves more attention. The decay 2*Lithium-5 => Helium-4 + Lithium-6 is interesting because it is anomalous considering that Lithium-5 has a "magic" Neutron number and a N/Z ratio that is not unreasonable compared to Helium-3, yet undergoes nuclear action, despite Lithium-5 being the most reasonable candidate for a stable Isotope-5. [[Special:Contributions/14.202.17.58\|14.202.17.58]] ([[User talk:14.202.17.58\|talk]]) 17:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)