Talk:Isotopes of lithium/Archive 1

Top
This article is part of 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:
 * (A) G. Audi, O. Bersillon, J. Blachot, A.H. Wapstra. The Nubase2003 evaluation of nuclear and decay properties, Nuc. Phys. A 729, pp. 3-128 (2003). &mdash; Where this source indicates a speculative value, the # mark is also applied to values with weak assignment arguments from other sources, if grouped together. An asterisk after the A means that a comment of some importance may be available in the original.
 * (B) National Nuclear Data Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, information extracted from the NuDat 2.1 database. (Retrieved Sept. 2005, from the code of the popup boxes).
 * (C) David R. Lide (ed.), Norman E. Holden in CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 85th Edition, online version. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida (2005). Section 11, Table of the Isotopes. &mdash; The CRC uses rounded numbers with implied uncertainties, where this concurs with the range of another source it is treated as exactly equal in this comparison.
 * (D) More specific level data from reference B's Levels and Gammas database.
 * (E) Same as B but excitation energy replaced with that from D.

Z  N refs symbol   half-life                   spin              excitation energy 3  1 A   |Li-4    |91(9)E-24 s                |2- 3  1 B   |Li-4    |[6.03 MeV]                 |2- 3  1 C   |Li-4    |[6.0 MeV]                  |2- 3  2 A   |Li-5    |370(30)E-24 s              |3/2- 3  2 B   |Li-5    |[~1.5 MeV]                 |3/2- 3  2 C   |Li-5    |[1.2 MeV]                  |3/2- 3  3 ABC |Li-6    |STABLE                     |1+ 3  4 ABC |Li-7    |STABLE                     |3/2- 3  5 A   |Li-8    |840.3(9) ms                |2+ 3  5 BC  |Li-8    |838(6) ms                  |2+ 3  6 ABC |Li-9    |178.3(4) ms                |3/2- 3  7 A   |Li-10   |2.0(5)E-21 s               |(1-,2-) 3  7 B   |Li-10   |[1.2(3) MeV]               |(1-,2-) 3  7 C   |Li-10   |[0.11(5) MeV]              |1+ 3  8 A   |Li-11   |8.75(14) ms                |3/2- 3  8 B   |Li-11   |8.59(14) ms                |3/2- 3  8 C   |Li-11   |8.8 ms                     |3/2(-) 3  9 ABC |Li-12   |<10 ns                     |

Femto 15:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, Lithium-3?!
Wouldn't this be a triproton? And isn't that impossible? Reyk 22:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No idea. The reference for the mass is Audi/Wapstra, and it is properly marked as systematic data here. Femto 16:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK then. Reyk 21:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk
Now, I understand why this page is being considered for deletion. However, take a look at the Isotopes of Hydrogen page. A majority of the information there could possibly be found in the main Hydrogen page. With some work, the Isotopes of Lithium page could have a fair amount of information. Nonetheless, if this page is deleted, I am quite alright with that, and I apologize. Enzo Aquarius 00:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why this page was considered for deletion at all. Every element's page (other than a few of the very heaviest transuranic elements' pages, particularly the ones which have yet to acquire non-systematic names) has a corresponding "Isotopes of (element)" page. Even if the content isn't much, or some of it might be better off on the main Lithium page, it would introduce an unneeded inconsistency with the rest of the Isotopes category if it had been removed. Besides, I don't see the Isotopes pages for more obscure, less practically important elements (e.g., Isotopes of ytterbium) receiving similar treatment ... I'm surprised the vote for deletion was requested at all, and equally unsurprised that the only votes were for Redirect or Keep. Amarande 16:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Mergein Lithium-4 article
The Lithium-4 article is so tiny, and little referenced, I propose it is merged into this article. Lithium-4 would then be redirected here. Any objections? Rwendland 03:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not from me. Femto 13:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Separation method
The article states that large quantities of Lithium-6 has been produced for weapons, but it doesn't mention how lithium-6 enrichment is done. Does it use gas centrifuges like uranium, or does it do it more like deuterium?90.149.55.128 (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

mean free path
The vacuum distillation section says that Li-6 has a greater mean free path (than Li-7). However, the mean free path (of an ideal gas) does not depend on the speed or mass of the particles.

$$\lambda = {{kT}\over{\sqrt{2} \sigma p}}$$,

where k is the Boltzmann constant, T is temperature, &sigma; is collision cross-section, p is pressure.

Since Li-6 is lighter, it most probably evaporates faster than Li-7 (since equal kinetic energy results in larger speed for Li-6, more Li-6 atoms are fast enough to escape), but it has nothing to do with mean free path. Szaszicska, from huwiki --22:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear binding energy
I just added this sentence to the isotopes section of the main Lithium article and to the intro. paragraph of this article: "Both natural isotopes have anomalously low nuclear binding energy per nucleon compared to the next lighter and heavier elements Helium and Beryllium, which means that alone among stable light elements, Lithium can produce net energy through nuclear fission."

The History section of the nuclear fission article says that the first entirely artificial fission was achieved by bombarding lithium with a proton beam. I suppose technically that would briefly transmute the Li-7 (which formed most of the target) to Be-8 before it decayed into two alpha particles, but there is still a fair case to be made that Lithium-7 was the first nucleus to be artificially split. Enon (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Seeing as how this fission reaction could be achieved was discovered by Cockcroft and Wilson in 1929, Why isn"t it considered as a way to achieve a commercial nuclear fission process?WFPM (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Also, if an amount of Li-7 is placed into a neutron flux chamber, will it result in any amount of production of helium gas (plus energy) which could be piped out of the chamber?WFPM (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Lithium enrichment details by using colex
recommended for reference and details infos, indeed, seriously, free for download document and e-book.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bbpc.19660700610/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+6+Aug+from+10-12+BST+for+monthly+maintenance

http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/19/035/19035202.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.52.18 (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Lithium-7
"The lithium that is left over from the production of (the desirable) lithium-6, which is enriched in lithium-7 and depleted in lithium-6, has been sold commercially, and some of it has been released into the environment."

Could somebody with a background in the matter take a look at this sentence to clarify the meaning? Something isn't right, to this layman's eyes at least.

What, precisely, is the antecedent of "which"? If it's "leftover lithium," then the clause seems to say that leftover lithium from the production of lithium-6 is enriched in lithium-7 and depleted in lithium-6. If it's "lithium-6," then the clause seems to say that Li-6 is enriched in Li-7 and depleted in Li-6.

There's probably a simple fix to clarify the meaning, but as written the sentence is a bit dizzying.Tito john (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There is need of Li6 to produce Tritium and Li7 to use in PWRs and in MSR (molten salt reactors). So, there is both market for Li6 (limited, linked with military applications) and Li7 (Russia produces, China produces and uses in MSR tests, and US buys). `a5b (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isotopes of lithium. 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)

Conflicting half-life values
At the top of the Lithium isotope article, I see a different half-life value than that which is displayed at the bottom. The chart says 9.1x10^-23s whereas the number at the top says 7.6x10-23. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.179.224 (talk) 04:41, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

"Triproton" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Triproton. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 19:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

"Da" as an abbreviation
This abbreviation should be explained in the article: ''"...giving the measured atomic mass ranging from 6.94 Da to 7.00 Da." '' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclevinny (talk • contribs) 08:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Linked to dalton. Double sharp (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Isotope section should list nuclear reactions
Also Tritium isn't produced because 7Li is a good substitute. From Thermonuclear Wiki. Hence my point that 7Li + gamma > 4He + 3H. Should note 7Li>(n,2n)>6Li reaction costs ~1.2 MeV and 6Li>(+n)>4He + 3H + 4.7 Mev TaylorLeem (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there lithium-3 data yet?
Add it if there is. 24.115.255.37 (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There isn't anything; NUBASE2020 still lists it as unconfirmed without a measured half-life. ComplexRational (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

A new particle accelerator aims to unlock secrets of bizarre atomic nuclei
Here is an article on Lithium-11 with halo effect at A new particle accelerator aims to unlock secrets of bizarre atomic nuclei. Rjluna2 (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

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) 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"  .--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)