Talk:Isotopes of hassium

Discrepancy with "Island of stability" article[edit]

From the "Island of stability" article, "108 Hassium 277Hs ~12 minutes[8] Isotopes of hassium" with reference to http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/podcast/Interactive_Periodic_Table_Transcripts/Hassium.asp

This article does not have a half life specified, and in the introduction, it says the longest lived isotope is 269.

One of these needs to be fixed. Since I am not an expert, I will leave that to someone else.75.87.250.78 (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6th paragraph: "Element 108, today known as hassium, is one of the transactinides and it's most stable isotope - hassium-277 - has a half life of around 12 minutes." Double sharp (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe more reliable are Oganessian and Rykaczewski giving 30 seconds for ²⁷⁷Hs SF. Double sharp (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Isotopes of hassium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isotopes of hassium. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Isotopes of hassium. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self[edit]

Todo: in Big Table, replace current footnote ^[a] with #-notation as other Big Tables have (# = "Values marked # are not purely derived from experimental data, but at least partly from systematic trends. Spins with weak assignment arguments are enclosed in parentheses, ( )") -DePiep (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Data not decisive[edit]

@DePiep: the point of that note is that you can't name the most stable isotope easily. There is no claim about that in the table, and therefore the note doesn't serve its purpose here.--R8R (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get this. But once we can sort this table by hl (so desired), it makes more sense. And, as it stands now, it is just a note -- not an error IMO.

With or without this note here, should we change {{infobox hassium isotopes}}? The note could be more appropriate there. -DePiep (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't make sense. This note in the infobox casts doubt on the explicit claim that Hs-269 was the most stable isotope, it was written with this purpose and it says this; to work properly, it needs that claim or any discussion about what the most stable isotope is. The table, however, doesn't claim anything of sorts and has no room for the discussion of which isotope is the most stable one as it is unless it had, say, a column that ranked isotopes on their half-life (something we could but shouldn't have). We can't really tie it here to anything and the note works better even as standalone text; I've moved it to the lead section. I hadn't seen your reply when I did it but I hope you'll agree with this edit.--R8R (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]