Talk:Seaborgium/Archive 1

Untitled
This article is part of WikiProject Elements. Elementbox converted 10:27, 15 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 07:20, 25 June 2005).

Pronunciation
Dorky question: The name Seaborg ends in a hard G, but usually a G followed by and I is a soft G (like a J). I've always wondered, is the element pronounced as Seabor(hard G)ium, or Seabor(soft G)ium? Is either pronunciation acceptable? EDIT yes both are acceptable... considering most of the facts about this element are unknown

Seaborgium is pronounced with a hard G in order to firmly indicate the association with seaborg. Listen to the audio file for pronunciation.--Drjezza (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice Article
I've just read it, and I think its great, has anyone considered giving it a good article nomination? --Pstanton (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the ugliest article I've ever seen, but it looks extremely comprehensive. Nice work :) 203.206.252.243 (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Unintentional humour :)
"...and a survey indicated that chemists were not concerned with the fact that Seaborg was still alive."

Presumably Seaborg himself *was* concerned with the fact though. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.122.194 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Properties (especially melting point)
What are predicted melting and boiling points for Sg and nearby elements (such s Db, Bh, Hs, Mt)? Will melting points be higher than 3500 C? What with hardness? Will it be higher than hardness of diamond? 178.42.151.221 (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Here are my predictions for melting point and crystal structure, from extrapolation and qualitatively considering relativistic effects. I don't think the hardnesses will be harder than diamond's, though it will get very close (would say around 10.0 for Sg and 9.5 for Hs). The 7d transition metals might be able to go up to around Mohs 12.0, though this is much more OR. Double sharp (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Half-Life
There is conflicting data about half-lives in the article itself: In the introduction there is "most stable isotope 271Sg has a half-life of 2.4 minutes" and in the "Isotopes" section there is "longest-lived isotope is 269Sg [...] has a half-life of 22 s". The latter data seems to be outdated.

IAEA says that the isotope 272Sg has got a half-life of 1 hour, but I don't know what the italic remark "SY" means on IAEA's site. Icek 13:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * SY there means the value is theoretically derived from systematic trends and has not been verified experimentally. See also isotopes of seaborgium and talk:isotopes of seaborgium for some reference data. Much of the isotope-related text in the articles dates back to when these pages weren't available, you're right that someone should update it. Femto 15:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the problem has been fixed - thanks for spotting it! Walkerma 09:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really. It might just as well be 272 but it's unconfirmed. With inconclusive data like this the article should avoid definite statements like "the most stable" or "longest". Femto 11:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

sg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.170.203.140 (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The most stable is actually 269Sg, half-life 2.1 min. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You'll find here a less stable data. Jacques Ovion aka 82.224.88.52 (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Cold Fusion!
"The proton-rich isotopes from 258 to 261 were directly produced by cold fusion; "

......Really? I dont know enough about physics to know if this is true or not, but only enough to eye anything with the words cold fusion with deepest scepticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.231.164 (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Really. This is a standard term in the field and no, it does not have anything to do with the nonsense of Fleischmann and Pons. I've copied two paragraphs over from isotopes of rutherfordium to explain this. The "cold" refers to the low excitation energies of the resultant compound nuclei, so that they emit neutrons instead of fissioning. Double sharp (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Chemistry
http://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle.fullcontentlink:pdfeventlink/$002fj$002fract.1997.77.issue-3$002fract.1997.77.3.149$002fract.1997.77.3.149.pdf/ract.1997.77.3.149.pdf?t:ac=j$002fract.1997.77.issue-3$002fract.1997.77.3.149$002fract.1997.77.3.149.xml Double sharp (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Isotopes table
I question reliability of its sources. I can't find half-lives in the second source. The first source is outdated, as I've seen from half-lives on 268Db (info there given as of 2005) and 270Db (as 2010). Fresher info is available in both cases< dating from 2006 (!) and 2014, correspondingly.--R8R (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Half-lives are here from the second source. Do you know where I can get less outdated info? Double sharp (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't know a better source and I have my doubts if it exists. The only places I'd have any hope for are the sites associated with Berkeley, Dubna, Knoxville, Darmstadt, etc. I'd check there (and I will later if you won't have found it by the moment I get free time on my hands).
 * Also, a link for self: [1]. Also I have to check this thing later: [2]--R8R (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Emsley here. He contradicts himself on whether 269Db is known or not. He's also not exactly known for being accurate – remember the saga on natural Am, Cm, Bk, and Cf? Double sharp (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note I put a link next to it to a scientific document that ckaims to talk about that nuclide. It's currently downloading on my laptop at home; I'll check it late in the evening and see what it's got.--R8R (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They are the same link?! Double sharp (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently I made a mistake here. Anyway, you know there is a file to talk about. I'll read it when I'm home.--R8R (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The book has predicted data only, unfortunately. OTOH, we could find some uses for that biiiiiiig database.--R8R (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Only element to be named after a living person?
How about Einsteinium, discovered in 1952, while Einstein died in 1955? (Since there was a "Do not edit" note in the wikitext, I'm directed to this page.)

Go-in (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The name einsteinium was not announced until after Einstein's death in 1955, because the initial discovery was in the aftermath of the Ivy Mike nuclear test and hence was classified for three years. But you have a good point about this (we don't know when the name einsteinium was decided on), so I have changed it to "the first and so far only element to be named after a person who was alive when the name was announced". Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Oganesson is also named after a living person, Yuri Oganessian Porygon-Z 23:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in August 2016 when this discussion took place, the name oganesson was not yet official. Double sharp (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well now it is. So could you please fix it?Porygon-Z 14:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)
 * No, the talk page comments should stand as they were originally written; the timestamps should provide enough clarification. As for the article, oganesson is already mentioned in the lede. Double sharp (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, I would have made it a bit clearer. Porygon-Z 16:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

Compounds
Aren´t there compounds of seaborgium? Are there other superheavy compounds? Please clarify! Porygon-Z 16:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Many Sg compounds are predicted to exist (by extrapolating the properties of tungsten if nothing else), but only a few have been synthesized so far. This is so for other superheavy elements as well. ComplexRational (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Like what? Porygon-Z 14:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)
 * See Seaborgium. Double sharp (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The difference between should form, will from, and does form is too similar in the article. Could you make it a bit clearer please? Porygon-Z 02:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It says should form way to much. Maybe you can categorize it into the 3 forms? Porygon-Z (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)