Talk:Isotopes of lutetium

sortin on half life
Hi, i just tried to make the isotopes sortable by (eg) half life value, but its a bit complicated, any help is appreciated! Stratoprutser (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So sorting on half life goes with the "data-sort-values", where:


 * ns
 * µs
 * ms
 * s
 * 1) min
 * h
 * d
 * a
 * ...followed by a numerical value with as much significant zeroes as the largest value requires (sorting strings!), eg.  for 6.6475 days, as there's also   for 160.44(6) d(ays)(177m3Lu).
 * Do note that sorting doesn't go entirely flawless, due to the row and col spanning applied in the table, but its better then none :) Stratoprutser (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity: can sorting handle scientific notations of numbers correctly? 129.104.241.242 (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Why lutetium-176 is so stable
There are two problems here. The first is that 176Lu has a high spin of 7−, while its decay product 176Hf has a spin of 0+ like all even-even nuclei. The second is that, while 176Hf has low-energy excited states with spins 6+ and 8+ that 176Lu could decay to (these are only first-forbidden), the spin of 176Lu is intrinsic while those of these excited states of 176Hf are due to collective nuclear rotation, which results in a terrible match. Much the same thing happens with 236Np, though I imagine its half-life is a lot shorter because alpha decay to 232Pa is also possible for it. Double sharp (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Not exactly for 236Np: its alpha decay branching ratio is only 0.16%. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A more appropriate analogue would be 248Bk, whose 6+ spin is intrinsic while the 6+ spin of 248Cf is due to collective nuclear rotation. 129.104.241.193 (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In any case, the longevity of 176Lu has quite different machanism compared with other known non-beta-stable nuclides with beta half-life at least 1010 years. 2A01:E34:EC74:7170:C92D:3550:651:9FE3 (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Lutetium-176 is also energically allowed to undergo alpha decay to Thullium-172, with alpha energy 1.567 MeV with projected half-live about 10^40 years. Lutetium-175 is also energically allowed to undergo alpha decay to Thullium-171, with alpha energy 1.6198 MeV with projected half-live about 10^35 years.Cristiano Toàn (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC) contribs) 00:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Possible alpha decay of 152Lu
According to the Geiger-Nuttall law, 152Lu (N = 81) should have a partial alpha decay half-life at the order of 108 years, corresponding to an alpha decay probability at the order of 10-15%. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)