Talk:Unbinilium

Requested move 20 September 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Combined with RM on "ununennium" here. (non-admin closure) — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 19:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Unbinilium → 120 (element) – Element had not yet been named, placeholder as atomic number. 108.71.120.62 (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The IUPAC recommended name unbinilium is appropriate and consistent with titles of other elements that currently only have placeholder names.   -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Most stable isotope
Currently, the infobox says mass number=320 for the most stable isotope. However, that one is not listed in the infobox, nor mentioned in the text. 302Ubn is in text, but not in infobox. Unbiunium has similar issue. Can someone check these? -DePiep (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fricke (the source) predicts 320 without a half-life, same for elements 119 and 121. The information for nuclear properties is annoyingly scarce, and I decided to take whatever scraps I could find even if they did not always come accompanied by details. Double sharp (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK for me. Shouldn't they be added to the infobox (isotopes list), and be present in body text? BTW, the numbers mentioned are: E119: mn=315, E120: mn=320, E121: mn=320 (so different from what you wrote). E121 has source Amador, not Fricke. -DePiep (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't remember the details well enough, but the main point is correct. The trouble with adding them to the infobox is that without half-lives it would not say anything new – and likewise there is not really much to say in the body about it either. I guess I could add a sentence cited to the respective sources again that so-and-so predicts that 315 or 320 is the most stable isotope. Double sharp (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I have since changed this to include the possibly synthesised 299120, whose surprisingly long observed half-life might be explained by the formation of a high-spin isomer and consequently hindered alpha decay of 299120 and 295Og. Double sharp (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding possible target-projectile reactions for E120
I wonder if anyone has considered trying the 244Pu+60Fe reaction, especially since 60Fe and 10Be projectiles are being considered as long-lived radioactive beams. This is even better than the 248Cm+54Cr and 251Cf+50Ti reactions that will be tried, as 244Pu+60Fe gives the compound nucleus 304120* that hits the N = 184 shell closure, which should have some effect. It is even almost as good (except for the lowered asymmetry) as the beautiful dream 257Fm+48Ca. So we could seriously think about making isotopes from 295120 all the way to 302120, which would give us a road open to the heavy Og isotopes 297Og and 298Og. Double sharp (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, hey, someone has considered it! But it seems like the cross-section for producing 302120 in the 2n channel is not very good. (What about the 3n and 4n channels, though?) Double sharp (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit
This article is not in my field. Just wondering, ComplexRational, what is the overarching rationale for the removal of the refs? It's past my bedtime.--Quisqualis (talk) 08:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For the first ref (NUBASE), we have Template:NUBASE 2016 which is essentially an updated version of the old ref (NUBASE 2003) that still gives the same information. I then moved the statement "Isotopes of unbinilium are predicted to have alpha decay half-lives of the order of microseconds" to section Unbinilium because it fits better in the prose there - along with other predictions, rather than in its previous location in the section about attempted nucleosynthesis (244Pu + 58Fe) - which should give details about the specific experiments and only talk about decay properties if element 120 was observed, which was not the case. I hope this answers your question. ComplexRational (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)