Talk:Nobelium/Archive 1

other metas
Anyone want to update this in liht of isotopes of nobelium? -lysdexia 17:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Russian discovery
Text says this:
 * In 1992, the IUPAC-IUPAP Transfermium Working Group (TWG) assessed the claims of discovery and concluded that only the Dubna work from 1966 correctly detected and assigned decays to Z=102 nuclei at the time. The Dubna team are therefore officially recognised as the discoverers of nobelium although it was most likely detected at Berkeley in 1959.

The previous paragraphs tell us differently, according to my (subjective) estimation: it tells us that the Berkeley team discovered a signal that was assigned to 254No but then reassigned 252No as fit. By my estimation, this instead indicates that also the Berkeley group detected spurious signals, like the Nobel Institute, and that IUPAC was perfectly correct in assigning the discovery to (FLNR). I think this is the most neutral point of view, and that the text just should say to whome IUPAC assigned the discovery, not claiming that Berkeley detected it too.  Said: Rursus   ☻   14:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody said anything. I'm going to change a "most probable" to a simple "might have" (speculative).  Said: Rursus   ☻   15:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory statements re first isolation
The lede says the Russians first isolated No in 1966, but the body of the article describes different groups who did so in the 1950s. Obviously there is a controversy here, and I'm willing to bet quite the hot one. The nature of the dispute isn't really explained in the article, and it likely ought to be. If anyone has that information, please help?

What I'd propose is that we move the 1966 reference out of the lede, and incorporate it into the discussion of disputed claims later on, hopefully with some useful context on how and why the dispute arose. Uberhill 09:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would keep the 1966 reference alone in the lead, as it is the first complete and correct one. The ones before that have inconsistencies and can be mentioned later as claims.
 * And yes, the info ought to be there, but isn't yet (I've been working from the heaviest elements down, and so I haven't gotten here yet). However, this paper gives the required info. Double sharp (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

So there have been theoretical predictions!
NoH2 and LrH2 analysed. Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The symbol No
In fact, this was quite prominent as a joke in both the American and Russian teams after the Swedish discovery was disproved: that all that was left of the element nobelium was its symbol "No". (This is in L. Vlasov's 107 Stories about Chemistry.) Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep. It's a constant joke. 96.238.159.58 (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Squirtle2016