Jump to content

Talk:Isotopes of thorium

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any theoretical explanation about Th-216 ?

[edit]

Any theoretical explanation about Th-216 and its instability? Thorium-216 has a magic number (physics) for neutrons of 126, and thus the atomic mass number of 90 + 126 = 216, yet Th-216 is pretty darned unstable.
The most common and stable isotope of thorium is Th-232, which has 90 protons and 142 neutrons, neither of which is a magic number. On the other hand, lead-208 has magic numbers for both protons and neutrons, 82 + 126 = 208, and bismuth-209 has a magic number for neutrons: 83 + 126 = 209, and it is practically stable.47.215.188.197 (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because all the closed nuclear shells in the world will not save you from being so far from the beta stability line. That doom is governed by the weak force, not the strong force which is related to nuclear shells. Double sharp (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isotopes of thorium. 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).

  • 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) 14:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Occurrence of thorium 230

[edit]

It is reported that 230_Th is 0.02% of thorium, Its half life is given as 75,380 years. it therefore decays 1.405e10/7.538e4 times as fast as 232_Th. That is more than 186 thousand. How on earth can 230_Th be even as much as 0.02% of existing thorium? It is a great-great-granddaughter of 238_U. So presumably occurs as 7.538e4/4.468e9 of 238_U, which is less than 0.000017 of uranium abundance.

Here's another question: Do common thorium deposits contain the 230 isotope, or does it mainly appear in uranium deposits? DaveyHume (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DaveyHume: Th deposits generally are nearly pure 232, with no significant amounts of 230. It's uranium deposits that will give you the 230 (you can purify out the Th-230 from them).
The 0.02% figure is a deep-sea thing. Uranium is soluble under those conditions, but thorium is not. As such Th-230 accumulates in the sediment to measurable levels. It should really rather be listed as 0.02±0.02% as on the IUPAC website, I suppose. Double sharp (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Isotopes of thorium. 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).

  • 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) 14:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to not split. 141Pr {contribs} 07:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose split the section Isotopes of thorium#Thorium-229m into a separate article. This section is large and probably enough to create its own article. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment related: Category:Isotope content page (65) WP:SPINOFF, WP:SPINOUT. DePiep (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considerations.
1. Main Isotope. Apparently, this m-isotope has been listed as Main Isotope. (In our developing MOS § What is a "Main isotope"?, current base list here: " 'Main' because of IAR: Remarkably low-lying isomer"). This is not an absolute rule for article creation, but supportive it is. So: a Go.
2. Body text. Section Isotopes of thorium#Thorium-229m consists of eight paragraphs, flatly. The paragraphs are nicely of length (1000 words together). The section has 33 different sources.
In my opinion, the paragraphs currently lack depth. It is a long list of descriptions. I'd expect some differentiation; maybe distinction (subsections) by discovery/history, theories, research, importance, meaningfulness in RL/in science. Or: more of a storyline. This applies for the current section, and (more so?) for a standalone article. As it stands now, it is not inviting and after reading the question remains: 'all true but why is 229m relevant?'.
3. 229Th? I leave it to others to think whether its ground state isotope, 229Th, could be the article (strong relationship between the two?).
TL;DR: could use more depth in the article body, into encyclopedic story. -DePiep (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This splitting proposal has stalled for 8 months - shall we split the article or not? 141Pr {contribs} 10:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think no. I don't know how to fix about 'all true but why is 229m relevant?'. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spontaneous fission of 230Th

[edit]

Should it be noted that 230Th is the lightest nuclide with observed spontaneous fission? 129.104.241.214 (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible double beta plus decay of 224Th and 226Th

[edit]

224Th and 226Th are potentially capable of double beta plus decay, and 232Th is potentially capable of double beta minus decay, although the estimated half-life should be very long. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible alpha decay of 234Th

[edit]

According to [1], 234Th (decay product of 238U) should have a partial alpha decay half-life at the order of 1014 years. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isomeric transition of 229mTh

[edit]

Energy of the isomeric transition of 229mTh: 8.3 eV × NA = 800.8 kJ/mol, which is in the order of the energy change in a typical chemistry reaction (for example 2Na + Cl2 → 2NaCl). Does this mean that given 229Th, its isomer can be easily produced? 2A04:CEC0:10F7:4CCE:4D6B:BB75:8017:1D4 (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2A04:CEC0:10F7:4CCE:4D6B:BB75:8017:1D4: Yes! It was a 20-year research campaign to find the energy accurately enough to make it possible, but as of mid-2024, laser excitation of 229Th has been demonstrated. See Nuclear clock. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Isotopes_of_thorium&oldid=1251659763"