Talk:Isotopes of lawrencium

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isotopes of lawrencium. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923135135/http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/amdc/nubase/Nubase2003.pdf to http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/amdc/nubase/Nubase2003.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923135135/http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/amdc/nubase/Nubase2003.pdf to http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/amdc/nubase/Nubase2003.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Could be more stable or at least having a comparable t$1/2$ to ?
is odd-even, while is odd-odd. I know isn't synthesized, but theoretical calculations can be made. 80.98.179.160 (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Odd-odd isotopes may actually be more stable in this region of the chart of nuclides because the odd proton and odd neutron both hinder spontaneous fission; see 277Mt (half-life around 5 ms) and 276Mt (half-life around 0.6 s). Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also note that 263Lr and 265Lr are expected to be the beta-stable Lr isotopes, so increasingly heavy Lr isotopes should start to suffer β− decay with decreasing half-lives. Double sharp (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Strange as I readed that odd-odd nuclides have less binding energy than the surrounding odd-even, even-odd, or even-even nuclides. 80.98.179.160 (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Binding energy isn't everything. Yes, it means that β decay can happen to a nearby even-even nuclide, but it's not the only decay mode here. For many even-even superheavy nuclides, SF happens quite quickly as it is not hindered much: for odd-odd superheavy nuclides, it happens quite slowly, and so we have to wait for the β decay instead. That is why 266Lr is long-lived while its probable daughter 266Rf is not. Furthermore, simple calculations of binding energy only tell you that a decay can happen, not how long it will take (it may be slowed down greatly by other factors). Double sharp (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you please kindly give some references that predict 263Lr and 265Lr to be beta-stable isotopes? Personally I would guess that the odd-A beta-stable isotopes are 259,261Md, 263,265No and 267Lr. The chart predicts 261Md, 263,265No and 267Lr to be beta stable. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure where I got that indeed, thanks for the correction. In this old chart 265Lr (but not 263Lr) is predicted to be the only beta-stable Lr isotope. I wouldn't be surprised if our predictions have improved since then. Double sharp (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It is a pity that we are nowhere close to being able to verfiy either of the predictions. :( 129.104.241.214 (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Actinoid collisions for transfer reactions (e.g. 238U+248Cm, or better 238U+254Es) should allow us to probe this region. So, let's not give up yet. :D For finding 265,267Lr alone, a long run of 249Bk+48Ca would also work: one could search for the 2n channel (needed for 295Ts, which after seven alpha decays reaches 267Lr) and to avoid the 4n chain getting cut off by SF at 281Rg or 277Mt. Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Lawrencium is the last element whose most stable isotope can be confirmed with safety
For element 91, 93, 95, 97, the most stable isotope is beta-stable.

99: beta-stable = 253Es, most stable = 252Es

101: beta-stable = 259Md (perhaps also 261Md), most stable = 258Md

103: beta-stable = 265Lr or 267Lr, most stable = 266Lr

Note that the most stable isotope of nobelium is not known. 129.104.241.242 (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)