Talk:Isotopes of livermorium

Sources[edit]

This article is part of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Isotopes. Please keep style and phrasings consistent across the set of pages. For later reference and improved reliability, data from all considered multiple sources is collected here. References are denoted by these letters:

(A) G. Audi, O. Bersillon, J. Blachot, A.H. Wapstra. The Nubase2003 evaluation of nuclear and decay properties, Nuc. Phys. A 729, pp. 3-128 (2003). — Where this source indicates a speculative value, the # mark is also applied to values with weak assignment arguments from other sources, if grouped together. An asterisk after the A means that a comment of some importance may be available in the original.
(B) National Nuclear Data Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, information extracted from the NuDat 2.1 database. (Retrieved Sept. 2005, from the code of the popup boxes).
(C) David R. Lide (ed.), Norman E. Holden in CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 85th Edition, online version. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida (2005). Section 11, Table of the Isotopes. — The CRC uses rounded numbers with implied uncertainties, where this concurs with the range of another source it is treated as exactly equal in this comparison.
(D) More specific level data from reference B's Levels and Gammas database.
(E) Same as B but excitation energy replaced with that from D.

  Z   N refs symbol  half-life                   spin              excitation energy
116 173 A*  |Lv-289 |10# ms                     |5/2+#
116 174 A   |Lv-290 |50# ms                     |0+
116 174 B   |Lv-290 |15(+26-6) ms               |0+
116 175 A   |Lv-291 |100# ms                    |
116 175 B   |Lv-291 |6.3(+116-25) ms            |
116 176 A   |Lv-292 |120(100) ms                |0+
116 176 B   |Lv-292 |18.0(+16-6) ms             |0+
116 176 C   |Lv-292 |~0.03 s                    |
116 177 B   |Lv-293 |61(+57-20) ms              |

Femto 13:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the symbol to Lv in the above list. Double sharp (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No units for 6.3[edit]

6.3(+116-25) ?? what units? netdragon 27 July 2006 (UTC)

ms - fixed. Femto 17:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ununhexium-289[edit]

Could someone add ununhexium-289 (disc. 2011) to this table? This article might be dubious. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reassignment of the first element 114 decay chain[edit]

Given that a similar activity was seen later from an experiment at Dubna trying to make element 116, I wonder if that was again the 2n channel leading to ²⁹⁴Lv and its daughter ²⁹⁰Fl. But this is OR for now, until we try for the 2n channel again or go for the heavy ²⁵⁰Cm targets! Double sharp (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, this is the LLNL report (search "SF event 2"). If Dubna's reassignment of the original 1999 Fl decay chain to ²⁹⁰Fl is true, then this is quite possibly ²⁹⁴Lv, though the initial alpha appears to have not been detected. Double sharp (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was another mystery chain at the GSI-SHIP in 2012 (chain 1 in this paper). This was once again from the ²⁴⁸Cm+⁴⁸Ca reaction. The decay energies do not match Kaji et al.'s 2017 paper which they tentatively assign to ²⁹⁴Lv; but the first alpha decay matches very well the expected value they give for the missing first alpha from ²⁹⁴Lv in their investigation of the same reaction at RIKEN. Hofmann et al. (in the 2012 paper) propose four possible reactions leading to this: 2n, pn, p2n, and p3n, which would lead to ²⁹⁴Lv, ²⁹⁴Mc, ²⁹³Mc, and ²⁹²Mc respectively, all of which are unknown. Now, the cross-sections for most of these side-channels involving proton evaporation seem too high to be expected (except perhaps the p2n channel), but cannot be excluded entirely. I guess it is possible that we are seeing another chain starting at ²⁹⁴Lv and electron capturing at ²⁹⁰Fl, once again going down to ²⁷⁸Bh, but with different isomers along the way, and perhaps with some gamma decay or internal conversion along the way explaining the differing decay energies; the first would explain why the half-lives seem to be a lot shorter than those in the first Dubna chain that has been variously assigned tentatively to ²⁹⁰Fl, but we are once again engaging in the unlikely pursuit of postulating a whole chain of isomers.

I'll stop speculating here on the talk page, since I am not in the field and am quite likely just committing errors that anyone actually in it would notice (and if they are, I plead interest in learning and communication on their inspirational efforts to probe the limits of matter). I guess the main lesson here is that we should keep working on this and other reactions leading to the most neutron-rich nuclei we can get to, now that the electron-capturing region is at hand, and find all those rare channels and rare decay branches. The current picture we have of clear alpha-decay chains terminating at spontaneously fissioning nuclides is a little worrying: it just seems too neat, which we would not expect especially for nuclides with odd Z or N. Double sharp (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Isotopes of livermorium. 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) 14:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]