Talk:Isotopes of lithium: Difference between revisions
→Lithium-5: ~~~~ |
m Maintain vital articles and {{WikiProject banner shell}}: Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. (keep the class of vital article: List in {{WPBS}}) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|vital=yes|1= |
||
|isotope=yes |
{{WikiProject Elements|isotope=yes |
||
|class=List |
|||
|importance=Low |
|importance=Low |
||
|isotopes=yes}} |
|isotopes=yes}} |
||
}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
{{archives|age=365}} |
{{archives|age=365}} |
||
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=Science|subpage=Chemistry|class=List}} |
|||
== Li8 Decay is Misleading == |
== Li8 Decay is Misleading == |
||
Revision as of 11:22, 5 December 2023
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
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)
- 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)
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)
| 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 |
| Ar°(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)
"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)
- 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)
References
Lithium-5
I feel that Lithium-5 deserves more attention. There is no stable Isotope-5, of which Lithium-5 and Helium-5 are the most stable. At least a link to a page that discusses Isotope-5, Isotope-8, etc. 14.202.17.58 (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)