![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Copernicium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | Copernicium is part of the Group 12 elements series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present. |
The wikipedia periodic table labels Ununbium as a liquid, not a gas, unlike stated in this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.228.65 ( talk • contribs)
The introduction to the main article says Cn-283a has a half life of about 4 mins, whereas the info box lists 4 s. Also, the info box and the data on the page Isotopes of Copernicium are wildly inconsistent. I do not know where any of this is sourced, so will not attempt to change anything myself.
121.73.128.173 ( talk) 19:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I keep noticing this as well for Cn-283. There is a source for the 4 seconds one but I have also seen other non-Wikipedia websites on the internet claiming 4 or sometimes 5 minutes. Dayshade ( talk) 20:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
tendency down through lower numbers of extra neutrons to a point where the atomic nucleus achieves a more semi-stable condition that is still subject to the occurrence of a nuclear fission occurrence, due to some kind of dynamic force unbalance within the nucleus. And it is also noted that the EE isotopes should be more balanced than the EO's. With regard to the element 112Cn, this would occur in the case of even A number isotopes. With regard to the permissible number of extra isotopes for a condition of least instablility value should logically be an even number, and with regard to the isotope 112Cn285, the calculated number of extra neutrons is 285 - 2x112 = 61. WFPM ( talk) 21:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Recent articles from Hofmann et al. indicate that the purported isomeric state of 283Cn may have its explanation in EC from this nuclide producing 283Rg, whose longevity would fit well with the trend across Rg isotopes. Similarly, the 285Cn isomer may not be the daughter of 289Fl as originally assigned, but that of 290Fl, since the original Dubna experiments used a low beam energy, making the 2n channel 244Pu(48Ca,2n)290Fl feasible as it was in the reactions 245Cm(48Ca,2n)291Lv and 243Am(48Ca,2n)289Lv. A corroborating experiment at RIKEN in 2016 has detected what could reasonably be 294Lv similarly in the 248Cm(48Ca,2n)294Lv reaction, decaying to spontaneously fissioning 286Cn. The long half-lives observed in the Dubna experiment may be due to a long-predicted EC branching of 290Fl; then the supposed copernicium isomer would really be 286Rg. The termination of the chain at long-lived 278Bh is close to where the beta-stability line ought to be in this region and is in the N ~ 170 region of low stability stranded between the N = 162 and N = 184 closed shells. But all this is speculation, albeit published speculation, without more repeats of these experiments aimed to reach the 2n channels and measure EC branching, the latter of which would be very useful for the 249Bk(48Ca,2n)295Ts reaction. Double sharp ( talk) 05:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Copernicium. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Copernicium. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Atomic radius is listed as empirical: 147 pm (predicted). What does that mean? -- Klausok ( talk) 21:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
|atomic radius calculated=
already is available :-) . See {{
Infobox copernicium}} edit I just made. One can leve out the "(predicted)" comment, we could aslo change the template text "calculated". -
DePiep (
talk) 23:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)There are 2 charts about half-life. But, there are some numbers that are different. ex)284Cn 98=> 284Cn 97(ms)/ 285Cn 28=> 285Cn 29 (s) So, I want to be sure that these are from fine citations, and change it into a better form. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Kern Choi 5 ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
What facts do we know about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, now we have an alternative explanation for the strong interaction of Cn atoms with the Au surface (large dispersion forces), so even that experiment seems to be not so conclusive after all. Maybe we should go back and uncolour everything after hassium... Double sharp ( talk) 20:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
According to Balantekin and Takigawa in their article/review "Quantum tunneling in nuclear fusion" (year 1997 and page 33), Hofmann produced the element Z=112 by a "so called cold fusion method using Zn+Pb reaction". I also just read here on this wiki article that "hot fusion" is used exclusively to qualify only the russian synthesis experiment and no other. Since Balantekin and Takigawa implicitely refer to a fudion allowed by quantum tunneling at energies classicaly too low for fuzion to occur, my question is: How "cold" was this fusion of Cn / At what temperature and pressure did it occur, roughly? They talk about a "SHIP velocity filter" at the "GSI" and hete is a link to their own webpage where they use the term "cold fusion" themselves: https://www.gsi.de/work/forschung/nustarenna/nustarenna_divisions/she_physik/experimental_setup/ship It seems the Pb is actively cooled so it stays solid (!). Pb becomes liquid at ~600K / 327°C / 621°F so... if I understand correctly, this is indeed well under the "hot fusion" range. Can anyone confirm? Should it be mentionned in this wiki article? And/or reffered to / linked to on tbe range. Can anyone confirm? Should the term "cold fusion" be mentionned in this wiki article? And/or should this wiki article be reffered to / linked to on the wiki article named "Cold fusion", for example in its "See also" section? 77.205.22.120 ( talk) 18:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Copernicium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | Copernicium is part of the Group 12 elements series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present. |
The wikipedia periodic table labels Ununbium as a liquid, not a gas, unlike stated in this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.228.65 ( talk • contribs)
The introduction to the main article says Cn-283a has a half life of about 4 mins, whereas the info box lists 4 s. Also, the info box and the data on the page Isotopes of Copernicium are wildly inconsistent. I do not know where any of this is sourced, so will not attempt to change anything myself.
121.73.128.173 ( talk) 19:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I keep noticing this as well for Cn-283. There is a source for the 4 seconds one but I have also seen other non-Wikipedia websites on the internet claiming 4 or sometimes 5 minutes. Dayshade ( talk) 20:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
tendency down through lower numbers of extra neutrons to a point where the atomic nucleus achieves a more semi-stable condition that is still subject to the occurrence of a nuclear fission occurrence, due to some kind of dynamic force unbalance within the nucleus. And it is also noted that the EE isotopes should be more balanced than the EO's. With regard to the element 112Cn, this would occur in the case of even A number isotopes. With regard to the permissible number of extra isotopes for a condition of least instablility value should logically be an even number, and with regard to the isotope 112Cn285, the calculated number of extra neutrons is 285 - 2x112 = 61. WFPM ( talk) 21:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Recent articles from Hofmann et al. indicate that the purported isomeric state of 283Cn may have its explanation in EC from this nuclide producing 283Rg, whose longevity would fit well with the trend across Rg isotopes. Similarly, the 285Cn isomer may not be the daughter of 289Fl as originally assigned, but that of 290Fl, since the original Dubna experiments used a low beam energy, making the 2n channel 244Pu(48Ca,2n)290Fl feasible as it was in the reactions 245Cm(48Ca,2n)291Lv and 243Am(48Ca,2n)289Lv. A corroborating experiment at RIKEN in 2016 has detected what could reasonably be 294Lv similarly in the 248Cm(48Ca,2n)294Lv reaction, decaying to spontaneously fissioning 286Cn. The long half-lives observed in the Dubna experiment may be due to a long-predicted EC branching of 290Fl; then the supposed copernicium isomer would really be 286Rg. The termination of the chain at long-lived 278Bh is close to where the beta-stability line ought to be in this region and is in the N ~ 170 region of low stability stranded between the N = 162 and N = 184 closed shells. But all this is speculation, albeit published speculation, without more repeats of these experiments aimed to reach the 2n channels and measure EC branching, the latter of which would be very useful for the 249Bk(48Ca,2n)295Ts reaction. Double sharp ( talk) 05:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Copernicium. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Copernicium. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Atomic radius is listed as empirical: 147 pm (predicted). What does that mean? -- Klausok ( talk) 21:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
|atomic radius calculated=
already is available :-) . See {{
Infobox copernicium}} edit I just made. One can leve out the "(predicted)" comment, we could aslo change the template text "calculated". -
DePiep (
talk) 23:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)There are 2 charts about half-life. But, there are some numbers that are different. ex)284Cn 98=> 284Cn 97(ms)/ 285Cn 28=> 285Cn 29 (s) So, I want to be sure that these are from fine citations, and change it into a better form. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Kern Choi 5 ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
What facts do we know about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, now we have an alternative explanation for the strong interaction of Cn atoms with the Au surface (large dispersion forces), so even that experiment seems to be not so conclusive after all. Maybe we should go back and uncolour everything after hassium... Double sharp ( talk) 20:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
According to Balantekin and Takigawa in their article/review "Quantum tunneling in nuclear fusion" (year 1997 and page 33), Hofmann produced the element Z=112 by a "so called cold fusion method using Zn+Pb reaction". I also just read here on this wiki article that "hot fusion" is used exclusively to qualify only the russian synthesis experiment and no other. Since Balantekin and Takigawa implicitely refer to a fudion allowed by quantum tunneling at energies classicaly too low for fuzion to occur, my question is: How "cold" was this fusion of Cn / At what temperature and pressure did it occur, roughly? They talk about a "SHIP velocity filter" at the "GSI" and hete is a link to their own webpage where they use the term "cold fusion" themselves: https://www.gsi.de/work/forschung/nustarenna/nustarenna_divisions/she_physik/experimental_setup/ship It seems the Pb is actively cooled so it stays solid (!). Pb becomes liquid at ~600K / 327°C / 621°F so... if I understand correctly, this is indeed well under the "hot fusion" range. Can anyone confirm? Should it be mentionned in this wiki article? And/or reffered to / linked to on tbe range. Can anyone confirm? Should the term "cold fusion" be mentionned in this wiki article? And/or should this wiki article be reffered to / linked to on the wiki article named "Cold fusion", for example in its "See also" section? 77.205.22.120 ( talk) 18:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)