Talk:Isotopes of osmium

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isotopes of osmium. 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) 14:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Half-life of 184Os may still in dispute
The article Cook et al. (2014) questions the 1.12(23)×1013 years half-life of 184Os in Peters et al. (2014), the latter being the only up-to-now article to give this value. Instead, it proposes a half-life of 2.20(61)×1013 years (the value is still tentative and depends heavily on the measurement whose precision is yet a problem to be solved). A value of (3.38±2.13)×1013 years was proposed later in Cook et al. (2018). Please note that NUBASE2020 uses the 1.12(23)×1013 years value by citing Peters et al. (2014) (one can see this by entering 2014Pe22 in ). Personally I found the value (3.38±2.13)×1013 years more reliable despite its large uncertainty. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm in the process of updating to NUBASE2020; this is usually an average or the most accurate value. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 00:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Do not modify your own comments after they have been replied to. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 01:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Possible alpha decay of 187Os
According to this article, 187Os may have reasonable alpha decay half-life to have its decay observed and measured. 149Sm may be the only observationally stable nuclide to share this property (see here; 1020 years for 176Hf and 1022 years for 145Nd and 177Hf may also have some chance but I won't bet it). It's hard to believe that their alpha decays have not been observed: both of the theoretical half-lives are shorter than the half-life of 209Bi (and perhaps also 151Eu). 2A04:CEC0:C01E:FC3C:249D:DDD3:9844:468E (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)209Bi while Samarium, Hafnium and Osmium all ere multinuclidic element. We needed to separate specific nuclide before research deacy
 * For the 209Bi experiment, the low-temperature scintillating bolometers were made out of a Bi compound (Bi4Ge3O12), so there was no need to dope some other compound with Bi (as there was a need to do doping with 148Sm to detect its alpha). Maybe this is one reason? Double sharp (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Cristiano Toàn (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC) Bismuth is mononuclidic element, entire natural bismuth contains only
 * Cristiano Toàn (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC) Osmium is really rare element because it is siderophile, most osmium on the earth is concentrated in mantle or core but samarium is not

Half life of 160Os
The currently cited source says 97(+97−32) μs but https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.072502 ("Discovery of New Isotopes 160Os and 156W: Revealing Enhanced Stability of the N=82 Shell Closure on the Neutron-Deficient Side", Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 072502) says 201(+58−37) μs. These ranges do overlap, so perhaps more experimental data over time will resolve it? I guess no edit to the article is needed at this time, but I thought it might be worth dropping this citation on the talk page just in case. Kingdon (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)