This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Primordial element is a stub, and contains no info that that isn't here (at least that I can see). I propose it be deleted and any info in it that isn't here, moved to here, if any), and replaced with a redirect that directs primordial element to THIS article. Comments? S B H arris 21:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Without the use of the adverb "why", this article is evidently an effort by somebody to talk about 33 isotopes that somebody has decreed that were created in the early stages of the stellar mass accumulation process. And for this reason it is desired to be able to add these isotopes to a different list of 255 isotopes that have been deemed to be evolutionally stable. And to understand this we are to understand the significance of a mix of halflife values which include exponential years and exponential seconds. (note that a year is 10^7.499+ or say 10^7.5 seconds). And included in this list are a number of isotopes that have had a type of decay wherein they have fallen back in the nuclide chart by 2 elements due to alpha emission, as evidenced by OE83Bi209, which is supposed to be decaying back to OE81Tl205 with a halflife of 1.9E^19years (=10^26.78seconds), which takes it out of the stable elements list. And in the chart we note that most of them are heavy isotopes, except for EE62Sm146 (1.03x 10^8years) and EO19K40 (1.248x10^9years), with the 19K40 potassium being the exception in falling (Znumber) forward to stable EE20Ca40, And thus all of these involve what might be called minor adjustments of the nuclear structure. So I guess that what we have learned is that whatever amount of any of these isotopes that is found on earth is determined to have existed before the time of accumulation of the matter of the earth. And I always wanted to know the reason for the atom of EE62Sm146 to be unstable, and now I guess I know! Note that EE62Sm146 is unique in that it is shown to be unstable in spite of the fact that 3 percent of the constituency of stable 62Sm isotopes are EE62Sm144 (with 20 extra neutrons), and in every other instance the addition of 2 more neutrons to the lightest nuclide of a multiple stable isotope element, the result is the existence of a new stable isotope with increased constituency. WFPM ( talk) 04:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Note that in the Nubase data the mass excess value for 62Sm146 is lower than that of the reported stable 60Nd146, so they don't explain it either.
Of course not random!! That's why I've been scrounging around in the information trying to find where nature found enough neutrons near each other such as to be able to make them. But given that existence, it is probable that nature in the crunch process made some of everything and then the structural random failure rate characteristics then sorted out the stable and long lived isotopes from the others. But most of them are heavy, and an alpha emission for a heavy isotope is no big deal. What bothers me is the opinion of science pros that they are all identical, particularly the big ones. That could foul up the statistics. So how do they know that maybe some portion of the remaining ones couldn't be stable, like EE62Sm148 and EE62Sm146, and that the rest have a slightly higher random failure rate? WFPM ( talk) 23:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Table is only sorting numbers by the first numeric part, even in the columns that are in exponential notation, or tagged in millions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.58.194 ( talk) 23:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
This isotope had been observed to decay by EC, but this could not be confirmed, and although it is predicted to decay with very long half life, it is presently observationally stable. So should be removed from this list when I find good references for all that. That gives only 34 radioactive primordial nuclides. S B H arris 03:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Cite: New limits on naturally occurring electron capture of 123Te full paper on arXive URL: [1] DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.67.014323.
a column with half life in years would be useful, it's a more useful unit than quadrillions of seconds or 'times 13.8 billion years' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.53.190 ( talk) 21:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I've tagged this article as being too technical because it appears to have been written by a scientist for other scientists, not for a general audience. For example, the general reader will not be familiar with scientific notation, is unlikely to be familiar with chemical symbols (particularly for elements such as samarium and thorium), and some of the vocabulary could be made more accessible via explanations. I've added in some year values for scientific notation near the start, but this article probably needs rewriting with accessibility in mind. -- Poppy Appletree ( talk) 14:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The former's status as primordial is disputed, and the latter is much more often cited as an extinct radionuclide. Indeed, the former is considered (along with Fe-60, Hf-182, and Cm-247) as one of the extinct radionuclides for which conclusive proof of their past existence on Earth would be experimental proof that the r-process occurs in supernovae. Double sharp ( talk) 12:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
At the end of the first paragraph it states; "Only 288 such nuclides are known". Then, the second paragraph begins as "All of the known 254 stable nuclides occur as primordial nuclides, plus another 32 nuclides that [...]". So, 254 + 32 = 286, not 288. I think the error started with this this edition, lowering the 34 to 32, but without changing 288 into 286, so I will make this change. However, it would be good having a source to avoid original research. Eynar Oxartum ( talk) 16:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Isn´t rubidium-87 a primordial nuclide too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.84.46 ( talk) 11:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Two recent (24 Jan 2018) edits in the section Naturally occurring nuclides that are not primordial seem rather problematic. First the sentence There are about 51 nuclides which are radioactive and exist naturally on Earth but are not primordial (making a total of fewer than 340 total nuclides to be found naturally on Earth). was deleted with the edit summary this neglects spontaneous fission of natural thorium and uranium plus cosmogenic isotopes. The deleted fact does seem of interest, so I wonder whether the stated problem makse the sentence so valueless that it has to be deleted completely? Is it not possible for a knowledgeable editor to revise the sentence to make it more complete and/or more accurate?
And the next edit is the addition of the sentence Some other nuclides do not occur in the decay chains of 232Th, 235U, and 238U yet can still fleetingly occur naturally as products of their spontaneous fission. Of interest I agree, but it would be better to add a specific exxample or two to make it more concrete. Dirac66 ( talk) 22:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I have now realized that the article did not really define "geogenic" except for a link to Wiktionary. However Double Sharp has provided a better source in the above reply dated 28 January 2018, so I have today added that source to the article. Dirac66 ( talk) 14:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
The reference [1] states existing of primordial element heavier than U https://www.nature.com/articles/234132a0.pdf, which contradicts with the text. The right reference is https://journals.aps.org/prc/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevC.85.015801, which disproves the ref. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.232.69.1 ( talk) 10:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
although later studies could not detect it) and relocated the first. Thank you for pointing this out. ComplexRational ( talk) 21:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
In May 2021, papers confirmed that Pu-244 had been found in the Earth's oceans, alongside radioactive iron-60. (Also reported in [ https://scitechdaily.com/alien-radioactive-element-discovered-in-the-ocean-crust/ Sci-Tech Daily.)
“60Fe and 244Pu deposited on Earth constrain the r-process yields of recent nearby supernovae” by A. Wallner, M. B. Froehlich, M. A. C. Hotchkis, N. Kinoshita, M. Paul, M. Martschini, S. Pavetich, S. G. Tims, N. Kivel, D. Schumann, M. Honda, H. Matsuzaki and T. Yamagata, 14 May 2021, Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.aax3972
“Trace seabed plutonium points to stellar forges of heavy elements” by Daniel Clery, 13 May 2021, Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.abj4596
Twang ( talk) 05:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
It can be 3.9×1011 years, 4.68×1011 years or 4.97×1011 years (see page 67). NUBASE2020 gave an average of 4.83×1011 years as result, but this means that the value itself is absolutely incorrect. 129.104.241.214 ( talk) 23:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Primordial element is a stub, and contains no info that that isn't here (at least that I can see). I propose it be deleted and any info in it that isn't here, moved to here, if any), and replaced with a redirect that directs primordial element to THIS article. Comments? S B H arris 21:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Without the use of the adverb "why", this article is evidently an effort by somebody to talk about 33 isotopes that somebody has decreed that were created in the early stages of the stellar mass accumulation process. And for this reason it is desired to be able to add these isotopes to a different list of 255 isotopes that have been deemed to be evolutionally stable. And to understand this we are to understand the significance of a mix of halflife values which include exponential years and exponential seconds. (note that a year is 10^7.499+ or say 10^7.5 seconds). And included in this list are a number of isotopes that have had a type of decay wherein they have fallen back in the nuclide chart by 2 elements due to alpha emission, as evidenced by OE83Bi209, which is supposed to be decaying back to OE81Tl205 with a halflife of 1.9E^19years (=10^26.78seconds), which takes it out of the stable elements list. And in the chart we note that most of them are heavy isotopes, except for EE62Sm146 (1.03x 10^8years) and EO19K40 (1.248x10^9years), with the 19K40 potassium being the exception in falling (Znumber) forward to stable EE20Ca40, And thus all of these involve what might be called minor adjustments of the nuclear structure. So I guess that what we have learned is that whatever amount of any of these isotopes that is found on earth is determined to have existed before the time of accumulation of the matter of the earth. And I always wanted to know the reason for the atom of EE62Sm146 to be unstable, and now I guess I know! Note that EE62Sm146 is unique in that it is shown to be unstable in spite of the fact that 3 percent of the constituency of stable 62Sm isotopes are EE62Sm144 (with 20 extra neutrons), and in every other instance the addition of 2 more neutrons to the lightest nuclide of a multiple stable isotope element, the result is the existence of a new stable isotope with increased constituency. WFPM ( talk) 04:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Note that in the Nubase data the mass excess value for 62Sm146 is lower than that of the reported stable 60Nd146, so they don't explain it either.
Of course not random!! That's why I've been scrounging around in the information trying to find where nature found enough neutrons near each other such as to be able to make them. But given that existence, it is probable that nature in the crunch process made some of everything and then the structural random failure rate characteristics then sorted out the stable and long lived isotopes from the others. But most of them are heavy, and an alpha emission for a heavy isotope is no big deal. What bothers me is the opinion of science pros that they are all identical, particularly the big ones. That could foul up the statistics. So how do they know that maybe some portion of the remaining ones couldn't be stable, like EE62Sm148 and EE62Sm146, and that the rest have a slightly higher random failure rate? WFPM ( talk) 23:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Table is only sorting numbers by the first numeric part, even in the columns that are in exponential notation, or tagged in millions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.58.194 ( talk) 23:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
This isotope had been observed to decay by EC, but this could not be confirmed, and although it is predicted to decay with very long half life, it is presently observationally stable. So should be removed from this list when I find good references for all that. That gives only 34 radioactive primordial nuclides. S B H arris 03:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Cite: New limits on naturally occurring electron capture of 123Te full paper on arXive URL: [1] DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.67.014323.
a column with half life in years would be useful, it's a more useful unit than quadrillions of seconds or 'times 13.8 billion years' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.53.190 ( talk) 21:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I've tagged this article as being too technical because it appears to have been written by a scientist for other scientists, not for a general audience. For example, the general reader will not be familiar with scientific notation, is unlikely to be familiar with chemical symbols (particularly for elements such as samarium and thorium), and some of the vocabulary could be made more accessible via explanations. I've added in some year values for scientific notation near the start, but this article probably needs rewriting with accessibility in mind. -- Poppy Appletree ( talk) 14:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The former's status as primordial is disputed, and the latter is much more often cited as an extinct radionuclide. Indeed, the former is considered (along with Fe-60, Hf-182, and Cm-247) as one of the extinct radionuclides for which conclusive proof of their past existence on Earth would be experimental proof that the r-process occurs in supernovae. Double sharp ( talk) 12:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
At the end of the first paragraph it states; "Only 288 such nuclides are known". Then, the second paragraph begins as "All of the known 254 stable nuclides occur as primordial nuclides, plus another 32 nuclides that [...]". So, 254 + 32 = 286, not 288. I think the error started with this this edition, lowering the 34 to 32, but without changing 288 into 286, so I will make this change. However, it would be good having a source to avoid original research. Eynar Oxartum ( talk) 16:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Isn´t rubidium-87 a primordial nuclide too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.84.46 ( talk) 11:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Two recent (24 Jan 2018) edits in the section Naturally occurring nuclides that are not primordial seem rather problematic. First the sentence There are about 51 nuclides which are radioactive and exist naturally on Earth but are not primordial (making a total of fewer than 340 total nuclides to be found naturally on Earth). was deleted with the edit summary this neglects spontaneous fission of natural thorium and uranium plus cosmogenic isotopes. The deleted fact does seem of interest, so I wonder whether the stated problem makse the sentence so valueless that it has to be deleted completely? Is it not possible for a knowledgeable editor to revise the sentence to make it more complete and/or more accurate?
And the next edit is the addition of the sentence Some other nuclides do not occur in the decay chains of 232Th, 235U, and 238U yet can still fleetingly occur naturally as products of their spontaneous fission. Of interest I agree, but it would be better to add a specific exxample or two to make it more concrete. Dirac66 ( talk) 22:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I have now realized that the article did not really define "geogenic" except for a link to Wiktionary. However Double Sharp has provided a better source in the above reply dated 28 January 2018, so I have today added that source to the article. Dirac66 ( talk) 14:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
The reference [1] states existing of primordial element heavier than U https://www.nature.com/articles/234132a0.pdf, which contradicts with the text. The right reference is https://journals.aps.org/prc/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevC.85.015801, which disproves the ref. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.232.69.1 ( talk) 10:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
although later studies could not detect it) and relocated the first. Thank you for pointing this out. ComplexRational ( talk) 21:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
In May 2021, papers confirmed that Pu-244 had been found in the Earth's oceans, alongside radioactive iron-60. (Also reported in [ https://scitechdaily.com/alien-radioactive-element-discovered-in-the-ocean-crust/ Sci-Tech Daily.)
“60Fe and 244Pu deposited on Earth constrain the r-process yields of recent nearby supernovae” by A. Wallner, M. B. Froehlich, M. A. C. Hotchkis, N. Kinoshita, M. Paul, M. Martschini, S. Pavetich, S. G. Tims, N. Kivel, D. Schumann, M. Honda, H. Matsuzaki and T. Yamagata, 14 May 2021, Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.aax3972
“Trace seabed plutonium points to stellar forges of heavy elements” by Daniel Clery, 13 May 2021, Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.abj4596
Twang ( talk) 05:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
It can be 3.9×1011 years, 4.68×1011 years or 4.97×1011 years (see page 67). NUBASE2020 gave an average of 4.83×1011 years as result, but this means that the value itself is absolutely incorrect. 129.104.241.214 ( talk) 23:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)