Jump to content

Talk:Ununennium/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Element naming

Some chemist should go through the transuranic elements, including the imaginary ones, and make them read a little better, like I tried to do here. I only came here because I watch the deletion nominations. There are good reasons for naming things that don't exist, but chemists know them better than I do. Probably should explain the derivation of each name from the number too. Ortolan88 15:47 Aug 22, 2002 (PDT)

Another liquid?

Anyone know why it is thought to be a liquid metal?

IA group metals' melting temperature decreases from above to below. Francium's melting point is very close to room temperature already.

In what way is it ionic that it may be more stable than Francium?

Ununbium?

Isn't Ununbium expected to be liquid? Andros 1337 18:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Ununbium, which has been renamed Copernicium, is below Mercury in the periodic table, so it may be, but this is not known for certain. Ununennium will definetely be a liquid at room temperature. 86.167.77.112 (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Any reference for the "liquid" claim? Below someone claims the opposite... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources

The questuion about the liquid or solid question is answered in the sources. It is said in the sources that it is presumably solid. As well as the Theory of the Intermolecular Forces: Ununennium is tending to be ionic, which means it is likely to be solid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hopfer25148 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

In which source is this mentioned??--Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly an alkali metal?

"Ununennium would be the first element in the eighth period of the periodic table and the seventh alkali metal."
Is it certain that ununennium would be an alkali metal? It's uncertain that ununseptium is a halogen, so not unless someone synthesizes it and plops the atom in water...
c|haosys|t 18:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the impression that it's uncertain whether Uus is a non-metal or a metaloid, not whether it's a halogen or not. The reason for this uncertainty is not present for Uue; it is certain that Uue is an alikali metal, probably more electronegative than francium.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why this should be certain. Group 14 element ununquadium is apparently a noble gas (!), so it's quite possible that the 8th period de facto begins with ununpentium, making both Uus and Uue "normal" metals (or maybe "eka-actinoids"), not a halogen and an alkali metal. Relativity mixes up the periodic trends for the trans-actinoids... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


The electron configuration of the first 118 elements has been observed to follow a simple pattern leading to some assumptions about the configuration of the next few elements. Each time a p sub-shell is completed, the s sub-shell just beyond is started. Element 118 has a complete 7p sub-shell, and no 8s electrons, so 119 (ununennium) is assumed to have 1 8s electron. While that is a possibility, another configuration is also possible.
The standard pattern is: 1s; 2s; 2p, 3s; 3p, 4s; 3d, 4p, 5s; 4d, 5p, 6s; 4f, 5d, 6p, 7s; 5f, 6d, 7p, 8s. The next group if the pattern holds would be: 5g, 6f, 7d, 8p, 9s. However, it is necessary to look at the underlying cause of the pattern. Treating the electrons as being in elliptical orbits with eccentricity rising in steps is one view of the cause. Here, the next sub-shell filled is the one with a vacancy whose high point is lower than any other sub-shell with a vacancy.
From this view, a step size can be approximated. Since 2p fills after 2s and before 3s, the step size is between 0.001 and 0.999. Since 3d fills after 4s and before 4p, the step size is between 0.501 and 0.999. Since 4f fills between 6s and 5d, the step size is between 0.667 and 0.999. If the step size is less than 0.750, the 5g will fill before the 8s. If the step size is greater than 0.750 the 5g will fill after the 8s. Had the 5g filled before the 7p, the step size would have been less than 0.666 which is not the case due to the 4f data point.
From secondary evidence, a step size of 0.707 (the square root of 0.5) looks right. With energy falling as the square of distance from the nucleus, this gives an even pattern. If ununennium has a 5g electron, the next 17 elements would fill the 5g sub-shell (with an 8s electron added temporarily after 9 5g electrons, due to the stability of a half-full sub-shell - similar to the configuration of Gadolinium). This would give 18 noble elements at the end of the periodic table (plus 2 alkalis: element 128 and 137). Dirac’s limit sets a ceiling to atomic number around 137, so no additional configurations would occur. Boiling point on the final 20 elements is rather high for a noble gas (and the melting point of the alkalis is rather low), with at least some liquids at room temperature. --DenverRedhead —Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC).

Appearance

Why is this alkali metal predicted to be "colorless"? The others that have been observed are metallic or silver or gold-coloured. Dajwilkinson (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It will probably be a metallic silver or gold colour. It will certainly not be "colorless". 86.167.77.112 (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Whereas you're both wrong: you were ignoring relativistic effects. Its plasma frequency, just like roentgenium, would be so small that it would most likely be transparent. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Table/text contradiction

The text says that this element would be the first radioactive liquid element, and the table says that it is "presumably solid". 74.37.155.50 05:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Then the text is wrong too, as francium is a liquid at room temperature and it is also radioactive. Just too bad that it's so intensely radioactive that it would self-boil. Double sharp (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
This is likely to be the fourth radioactive liquid element, after Francium, Copernicium, and ununoctium. --DenverRedhead —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC).
Uh, guys, francium is a solid. Double sharp is wrong. Mercury is the only known liquid metal. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I meant that it is nearly a liquid. In any case the melting point is only estimated and although 27°C is the most common estimate, I think (it's somewhere on Wikipedia) there are some other estimates like 23°C (which would make Fr a liquid at room temperature, which is defined as 25°C). Double sharp (talk) 05:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
In any description of a substance being "liquid" or "solid", it is important to give the conditions under which that state was observed, primarily the temperature but of lesser importance is the pressure. I have a physics data book which draws information from the rubber bible, where the state of most elements is given at 298 K, pressure unspecified (except for gaseous elements where a pressure of 1 atmosphere is used). The table gives elements 1-94 only, and of those, only two are indicated as liquid (bromine and mercury). The melting point of francium is given as 300 K with the qualifier "highly uncertain". 300 K is so close to 298 K that this uncertainty means that francium may be a liquid at 298 K - or it may not.
Ununennium is one of those elements where few (if any) atoms have been created, and where the half-life of the most stable isotope is likely to be extremely short. These two factors together make the accumulation of sufficient quantity to make direct observation possible for long enough to assess the physical properties extremely unlikely at the present time. Speculation about the physical state of such elements is therefore outside the scope of Wikipedia. We must confine ourselves to reporting the information that has been published in reputable scientific journals. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Check this, as we go down the group in alkali metals, their melting points progressively get lower but they decrease their melting point differences by around half as we go down by one. Lithium has a melting point of 453.69 K, sodium is 370.87 K, potassium is 336.53 K, rubidium is 312.46 K, and cesium is 301.59 K. Their melting point differences are 82.82 K between Li and Na, 34.34 K between Na and K, 24.07 K between K and Rb, and 10.87 K between Rb and Cs. So based on the melting point trend in alkali metals, francium's melting point would estimated to be 295.86 K, which would be liquid at room temperature (298 K), 5.73 K lower than cesium. Ununennium would estimated to have the melting point of 293.42 K, 2.44 K lower than francium, which would indeed be liquid at room temp. Their quotients between the melting point differences from lightest and heaviest pairs are 2.41, 1.43, 2.21, and my estimates are 1.90 and 2.35. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 23:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
But this is all original research and speculation. Are there any reliable sources speculating on Uue's state at room temperature (298 K)? Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm predicting the melting points of francium and ununennium based on their melting points of lighter counterparts, like Dmitri Mendeleev predicted the properties of unknown elements and got it right, such as the melting point of eka-aluminum, now called gallium, based on the above elements aluminum and boron. So based on the periodic trend of the above alkali metals, francium and ununennium would most likely be liquids at room temperature. Having a melting point of francium at 300 K would violate the periodic trend since it is so close to cesium's melting point at 301.59 K. So francium's melting point would surely be overestimated since francium is so radioactive with the half-life of only 22 minutes that it gives off great deal of heat, so francium apparently melts above the actual melting point. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 20:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The difference is that Mendeleev's predictions were published, and therefore verifiable. Yours, as far as I am aware, have not been. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
This argue is meaningless from the beginning. It should end now. It is easy to see that pressure affect solids and liquids too not only gases. We are concerning the phase at 273.15K and 1 atm/101.325 kPa. But we should stop the fact about Uue being the first/second/third etc. liquid radioactive element at standard conditions, since we do not have verified source and/or trustable experimental results about most of the radioactive elements for a different reason. We cannot declare the phase of a single atom, because it is physical meaning less. Also a reactor is a vacuum, and surrounding the atom is a lot of other elements. Who can claim the phase of, for instance, a group of 2 atoms of 118-Uuo at standard temperature, when the reactor is a vacuum, and it is in a middle of a million of lead and krypton atoms? Saying all of this I am referring to Francium, Copernicium and Ununoctium. We never had enough to declare the phase directly, nor had we got a verified source that tells their phase by another method. On top of all this, does Uue exist? Phanthanhtom (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
So I think we should remove everything about the phase, and also everything not known and not predicted by a trustworthy source.Phanthanhtom (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
That statement had already been removed from the article before you made your comment, BTW, but a reliable source predicts that the melting point of element 119 should be between 0 and 30 °C (stated in the infobox), so we should be cautious about stating what its state at STP (25 °C, 1 atm) would probably be. Double sharp (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Temperature and Pressure

°Yes, in the Alkaline metals, the melting point goes down. But saying a element as liquid means that the element is liquid at 0°C and 1 atm. Or simply in standard temperature and pressure. The case of Ununennium is fairly different from that of Copernicium. Mercury is already a liquid, thus Copernicium must be a liquid.Hence Francium's still solid with the melting point around 30°C, then what source did you guys use to make sure that Uue is a liquid? 58.187.24.49 (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This article does not claim that Uue is liquid. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a note: on WP we use STP = 25 °C and 1 atm. The ref I added gives the melting point of E119 as 22–24 °C, which qualifies it as liquid at standard conditions under this definition. (I do note that this is very close to the Cs and Fr values; does anyone have a logical relativistic-effect reason?) Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Does it really exist?

Uue, if exist, is very unstable. However, as the synthesize don't make any atom, can it exist?58.187.25.180 (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No, unless we find the correct path of synthesis for the element. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe if we bombard 291Uus with alpha particles (4He2+ ions), we could get 295Uue. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the Germans have made it just recently. I got a memo at work the other day. We all celebrated the addition of a new line to our periodic tables, and 'hope for semi-stable elements somewhere in the 120's'. 58.7.211.130 (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
There haven't been any experiments to make element 119 since 1985 AFAIK. Perhaps you mean element 120? But then, results on the latest experiment by the Germans aren't released yet. Double sharp (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
According to the reference in the article, the Germans have been trying to create it since May 2012. So 58.7.211.130 might be right, though there seems to be nothing released to the public yet. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's nearly a year later, and nothing's released, suggesting a(nother) failure... Double sharp (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

@Double sharp: I got my hopes up when I saw this but then saw that it was an unreliable source with no data. One reason that we haven't heard anything yet might be that it takes a long time to conduct such an experiment and give out results.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a misreading of our "Attempts at synthesis" section, as it mentions the same reactions as though they were actually successful. Unfortunately, they were not. Double sharp (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

This statement is very uninteresting

To date, all attempts to synthesize this element have been unsuccessful.

Please make it more specific by revealing whether any attempts were close to being successful. Georgia guy (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

If we knew the cross-section necessary to synthesize E119, we'd already have done so. For now, we have only predictions, and while they all state that the Bk+Ti reaction is feasible (although not quite as good as Es+Ca), none of the experiments aimed at synthesizing E119 from the first pathway have succeeded. Everyone's bets seem to be that the synthesis will happen within the next few years, though. Estimates are that E119 and E120 should be harder to synthesize than Cn to E118: but the jury is still out there as to how much harder, as I understand.
According to Kratz the cross-section for E119 should be around 20 fb and that for E120 orders of magnitude lower, at 100 ab. It then should drop logarithmically, with that for E122 being about 10 ab. Not really optimistic for E120, but yes for E119. It is prudent to note that the world-record low cross-section that still resulted in a successful reaction was the Bi+Zn reaction which RIKEN used to make E113, with cross section 30 fb. But the trouble is that this is just one set of estimates and others' may differ.
Before the German 2012 experiments, Zagrebaev et al. predicted from the expected cross-section of the reaction that the first E119 atom would come in the first 5 months of the experiment, provided that the Ti beam intensity remained constant. Whereas, as we know, no E119 atoms were observed. GSI can certainly detect any such atoms formed provided they do.
There's also another factor, in that the expected half-lives of E119 and E120 are in the microseconds range, and an individual decay event can be much faster or slower. These half-lives tread dangerously close to one microsecond. Why one microsecond? Well, that's how long it takes for the newly synthesized atom to pass through the separator. So if the decay happens too quickly, we might produce the element, but never know we have.
TL;DR: I don't know. Once the synthesis happens, then we can talk in retrospect whether they were close. But success seems to move farther and farther away at each attempt at E119 and E120. Double sharp (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Ununennium

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ununennium's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "NUBASE":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ununennium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk · contribs) 01:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


Beginning review. I will be adding my comments over the next several days. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Automated checks

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. WebElements does not appear to have had a page on E119 until recently this year (I've been Googling "ununennium", and it only appeared recently, in September, but it would be nice to have a way to prove this), and so I suspect that they mostly copied this off Wikipedia (in fact, mostly copied me, when I rewrote the lede in August 2014.) (*￣m￣) Double sharp (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
My analysis of the lede showed that it had been been written over a period of time on Wikipedia with contributions by multiple editors, so it is good to have your confirmation! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Lede

  • "Ununennium is the element with the lowest atomic number that has not yet been synthesized. To date, all attempts to synthesize this element have been unsuccessful." Second sentence is repetitive. Either delete it entirely, or expand it slightly to include relevant additional information (Your option: What attempts by what teams? What alternative strategies employed? Why has synthesis been difficult? For example: "Multiple attempts by US, German, and Russian teams to synthesize this element...", but I expect you to have your own take on what is most important to present in the lede.)
  • I note from the talk page that others besides myself have found this sentence to be unsatisfactory in its present state. From your response to Georgia guy, it is evident that you've thought a lot about the lack of success in the multiple attempts to synthesize this element. Regardless, the sentence still needs improvement. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm thinking about how to do it; I think I'll have thought of a solution soon. Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
      • OK, changed it to "Multiple attempts have been made by American, German, and Russian teams to synthesize this element: they have all been unsuccessful, as experimental evidence has shown that the synthesis of ununennium will likely be far more difficult than that of the previous elements, and may even be the penultimate element that can be synthesized with current technology." (Noting how the cross-section estimates dropped from the nanobarns to the femtobarns from 1985 to the present, and Zagrebaev's comment in ref 10 that the elements Z > 120 "might already be beyond this natural time limit [1 μs] for their detection".) Is that better? Double sharp (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "For example, ununennium is expected to be less reactive than caesium and francium and be closer in behavior to potassium or rubidium..." Parallel sentence structure: "and to be closer in behavior"

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

History

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Synthesis attempts

  • "a limiting yield of 300 nb" At multiple points in this section, the word "yield" is used where I rather expected the word "cross-section." Is this a common idiomatic usage of the word "yield"?
    • I can see where it would come from, as the cross-section will give you a measure of the probability of fusion. But I think we ought to stick to "cross-section" for an article like this.  Done Double sharp (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Naming

  • "the recommendations are mostly ignored among scientists in the field" The term "in the field" is slightly ambiguous and led me to do a double-take. Usually when I think of "in the field", I think of a biologist collecting samples in Death Valley or a paleontologist digging up bones. What you seem to mean is that whereas academics tend to follow the IUPAC recommendations, the scientists actually doing work at the particle accelerators prefer the simpler and more straightforward nomenclature. Could you maybe find some slightly different wording to express this fact? I don't insist on a change; this just bothered me a bit.
    • Changed it to "the recommendations are mostly ignored among scientists who work at the particle accelerators used to synthesize superheavy elements": is that better? Double sharp (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Oops, I forgot that the theoreticians do it too: so I've made it "the recommendations are mostly ignored among scientists who work theoretically or experimentally on superheavy elements". Double sharp (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Predicted properties

Nuclear stability and isotopes

  • File:Island of Stablity derived from Zagrebaev.png The caption does not explain that the elliptical region circles the island of stability.
  • File:Next proton shell.svg Unclear caption. What do the left and right halves of this figure represent? Is the left side some sort of "results of an old model ignoring effects of azimuthal quantum number" versus the right side being "results of a more recent theoretical analysis" or what?
  • WP:CAPTION recommends succinct captions, placing most description in the article itself. I disagree, preferring to make captions complete, even if they tend to be verbose.
  • If you choose to follow the recommendations of WP:CAPTION, make sure that figure descriptions in the article text do not use terms like "the figure on the left/right/above/below" etc. because a large fraction of Wikipedia users are accessing Wikipedia using mobile devices. For articles requiring close integration between figures and article text, I've sometimes used numbered figures, even though maintenance of numbering can be tedious (for example, see Interferometry or Fizeau–Foucault apparatus).
  • The figures in this article lack "alt" text. I don't insist on alt text for GA, but if you intend the article to be submitted for FA, I think it is important. Alt text must be written to be easily interpreted by text-to-speech programs for people who have low vision.
  • "All isotopes with an atomic number above 101 decay radioactively..." Is there any way for an element to decay non-radioactively? Are there decay modes classified as non-radioactive?
  • "because of reasons not well understood yet," Try "because of reasons not yet well understood,"
  • "The alpha-decay half-lives predicted for 291–307Uue are of the order of microseconds." Try "on the order"
  • "Nevertheless, new theoretical models showed that the expected gap in energy..." Unexpected shift in tense. The sentences before this one are present tense, and the sentence after this one is present tense. Convert to present tense.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Atomic and physical

  • "which is easily lost in chemical reactions:" Try "which is easily lost in chemical reactions to form the +1 oxidation state:"
  • "The effect 'tearing' the 7p subshell into the more-stabilized and the less-stabilized parts is called subshell splitting." I searched Google and Google Scholar for the word "tearing" in conjunction with various variants on the search term "relativistic 7p subshell splitting", and the only results that I got were Wikipedia-derived. Is this use of the word "tearing" an actually established jargon use of the term, or could it be strictly a neologistic invention of some past Wikipedia editor?
  • "Due to the stabilization of its outer 8s electron, ununennium's first ionization energy—the energy required to remove an electron from a neutral atom—is predicted to be 4.53 eV, higher than those of the preceding alkali metals:"
  1. Perhaps move File:Ionization energy of alkali metals and alkaline earth metals.svg closer to this text?
    • I've moved all three pictures to just after the sentence "This stabilization of the outermost s-orbital (already significant in francium) is the key factor affecting ununennium's chemistry, and causes all the trends for atomic and molecular properties of alkali metals to reverse direction after caesium.", as the diagrams illustrate this trend-reversal really well. Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. The "preceding alkali metals in the group/column"? The "alkali metals from previous periods"? Or would that be redundant? My ear says one thing, my brain says another. You decide.
  • "indeed, unbiunium (element 121) is predicted to have a lower ionization energy of 4.45 eV, so that the alkali metal in period 8 would not have the lower ionisation energy in the period, as is true for all previous periods."
  1. This is not a logical continuation of the statement before the colon, since before the statement before the colon compares ionization energies from different periods, whereas the statement after the colon compares ionization energies within a period. Get rid of the "indeed" and start a new sentence.
  2. Do you mean, "so that the first alkali metal in period 8 would not have the lowest ionisation energy in the period, as is true for all previous periods"?
  3. "the lower ionisation energy" uses British English. There is mixed American and British spelling in this article. WP:ARTCON states, "While Wikipedia does not favor any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently." MOS:RETAIN suggests that "the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default." The original version of this article was somewhat larger than a stub and used American spelling.
    • Changed it to "This effect [referring to the 8s stabilization previously mentioned] is so large that unbiunium (element 121) is predicted to have a lower ionization energy of 4.45 eV, so that the alkali metal in period 8 would not have the lowest ionization energy in the period, as is true for all previous periods." Double sharp (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Chemical

Notes

  • "Although stable isotopes of the lightest elements usually have a neutron–proton ratio close or equal to one (for example, the only stable isotope of aluminium has 13 protons and 14 neutrons, making a neutron–proton ratio of 1.077), stable isotopes of heavier elements have higher neutron–proton ratios, increasing with the number of protons (iodine's only stable isotope has 53 protons and 74 neutrons, neutron–proton ratio of 1.396, gold's only stable isotope has 79 protons and 118 neutrons, neutron–proton ratio of 1.494, plutonium's most stable isotope has 94 protons and 150 neutrons, neutron–proton ratio of 1.596), making it difficult to synthesize the most stable isotopes of these elements, because the neutron–proton ratios of the elements they are synthesized from are lower than the expected ratios of the most stable isotopes of the superheavy elements." Long, run-on sentence. I see at least three sentences: "Stable isotopes of the lightest elements...", "Stable isotopes of heavier elements...", "It is difficult to synthesize the most stable isotopes of the superheavy elements..."

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

  • "aluminium" This is considered British rather than American English, but it is also the IUPAC recommended spelling. So while it violates the Wikipedia recommendation against use of mixed Englishes, it adheres better to world standards. Let it stand.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Final read

Looks good. While re-reading, I corrected a few items that I missed in my first read-thru. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

{ technical } tag

I would like some opinions on the educational level where this topic is studied. Professionals? College students? 204.234.74.238 (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This isn't really a very important element, especially since it hasn't even been synthesized yet, so I think it'd mostly be professionals. Nevertheless, it is very difficult to write such an article without using many technical terms (which are all linked to articles where you can get full definitions and explanations of them). Double sharp (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. I also think the { technical } tag isn't needed because the article's already written one (or two) levels down, as I'm taking high school chemistry and can understand the information presented within. 204.234.74.238 (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Papers

[1] Double sharp (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

More refs:

Double sharp (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC

Double sharp (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Also 2014, but apparently posted late enough that I couldn't have found it above? Double sharp (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Some months after I rewrote this

There is still some hope behind the quasifission approach. Double sharp (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

name

Certainly this element is usually called "element 119" among scientists, but the IUPAC name "ununennium" is the one in more common use. Double sharp (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. This RM is obviously not going to pass. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 20:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

– This element has not been given a name. 108.71.120.62 (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose (and should be speedy closed) – of course it has not been given a trivial name, but that simply means that the IUPAC systematic name (ununennium) is to be used. These systematic names are the officially approved names to use for elements whose discovery has not yet been recognised, such as ununennium. In any case, even if you dislike the systematic name (I know some people in the field do), it's daft to call it "119": no one will know what you are talking about. 119 whats? Protons? Neutrons? Croutons? If anything else it is "element 119". Had you proposed that there might be some room for an argument (even though I would personally not support it either, as it makes the naming of isotopes very awkward), but as it stands there is none. Double sharp (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unlike elements 113 and 115, which will soon have official names, this element has no info on a confirmed name, so please leave it where it is. Perhaps after the official names of elements 113 and 115 are made, scientists will start working on trying to make this element. Georgia guy (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Its symbol is actually 119. 108.71.120.62 (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. There is already a standard for which these unnamed elements are titled. See also Unbinilium, which also happens to be an article. Before ununquadium, ununhexium, etc were named, they were called "ununquadium" etc, with appropriate redirects pointing to them. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Procedural comment. RM on Unbinilium closed, combined here — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The IUPAC recommended name unbinilium is appropriate and consistent with titles of other elements that currently only have placeholder names. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC) (!vote copied over from the element 120 move discussion, now closed Double sharp (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name?

This should be named 119, with symbol 119. 108.65.81.68 (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This comes up every now and then. The answer is always no (see above for the last discussion on this). We follow IUPAC recommendations/names. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
If its symbol would be 119, what would the name be? 119? Also, if we used the other names (before krypton was named, but after thorium was named), both would be Th, and it would be confusing. So we use numbers. 108.71.121.84 (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense. What kind of history are you living in? At least in the real world, atomic number was not even known as a concept when krypton was discovered and named, and the systematic names were never meant for anything with atomic number under 101. (Besides, since Md, No, and Lr had already been named, it was really for elements 104 to 999 – which doesn't exist, in case that's your next question.) Your question is based on a false premise. The symbol is Uue (occasionally 119 gets used as such in the literature, but Uue is the standard), and the name is either "ununennium" or "element 119" if you hate the systematic names that much. How is "119" anything other than confusing and silly as a name, especially when you might want to refer to, I don't know, actual numbers as such? Your ideas have not and will not gain any traction and will be removed as WP:OR if you add them to articles. Double sharp (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@Headbomb: The only reason it is 'com[ing] up every now and then' is mostly because of this editor and his/her long history of this kind of trolling, occasionally mixed with actually useful questions of the stopped-clock variety. Double sharp (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Why isn't the name 119? 108.71.121.84 (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Because the world does not, in fact, respond to your whims? Double sharp (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
That isn't an acceptable answer. If the symbol is 119, what is the name??? 108.71.121.164 (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll advise everyone here to WP:DENY. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggest correction to wording

"Ununennium is the element with the largest atomic number that has not yet been synthesized."

Should this not read:

"Ununennium is the element with the smallest atomic number that has not yet been synthesized."

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:35E8:4930:ECB8:F2BA:1145:E4D4 (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes it should. I'd prefer to write that 119 is the lightest (measuring by single atoms) but that would keep getting "corrected". Double sharp (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Predicted cross-sections of reactions producing 295119 and its decay chain

See doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2017.11.001: a new paper is out! Predicted values are 40 fb for 249Bk(50Ti,4n)295119 (to be tried at the JINR) and 12 fb for 248Cm(51V,4n)295119 (under way at RIKEN). The produced 295119 should alpha decay to 291Ts and then join the known chain of 287Mc going down to 267Db. Double sharp (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Mass number

I noticed that in mass number section is written 315 (for more than 5 years), but the isotopes are 294, 295, 296. And because isotope numbers are ussually around mass number, how can this number be that higher? --Viliam Furík (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

There are probably a lot of isotopes of element 119. The listed ones (294, 295, and 296) are probably the easiest to synthesise. That does not mean they are probably the most stable, which is what the predicted figure of 315 is referring to. Double sharp (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Redundance

"It is the lightest element that has not yet been synthesized." Of course, the atomic mass is going to increase with every element. --2001:16B8:3134:3200:30DB:245F:C462:D7F7 (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily; the atomic mass of argon (Z=18) is slightly higher than that of potassium (Z=19). However, "lightest" in this context usually refers to atomic number rather than atomic mass or indeed density (which usually attracts quibbles whenever uranium is listed as the heaviest significant natural element, because it is not the densest). Double sharp (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

(to be added in my next pass). Double sharp (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Iff it will be synthesized somewhen...

I know a trivial name: Pereyium (Py). Alfa-ketosav (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

An interesting suggestion, but it will be up to the discoverers to name it, whoever they will be. Double sharp (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
P.S. Given that the Japanese attempt is already underway, I would expect them to go for a famous Japanese scientist if they get the discovery, since they already named an element after Japan with nihonium. Some of the floated suggestions for element 113 may yet be repurposed for element 119, like perhaps yukawanium or nishinanium. Tomonaganium would not be a bad choice either, though I don't think it's been suggested. But this is all speculation. Presumably JINR also has some names in mind if it gets E119 and/or E120; they were trying for flerovium and moscovium for a while before they finally became E114 and E115. Double sharp (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Petition to name this element after Waluigi?

In this article, it says that Waluigi could be named after this element... is it simply a ploy to get him into the Periodic Table? Maybe Japanese scientists could simply ignore the pettion?

--67.87.244.249 (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I could get a million signatures to name an element after Pee Wee Herman, but it's unlikely anyone would take it seriously. Nearly every modern element has been named after a great scientist or a geographical location. Bkatcher (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
We previously discussed the inclusion of similar petitions in late 2016 at Talk:Moscovium/Archive 1#Motorhead. Double sharp (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Does anyone have an opinion on whether this article should be semi-protected (with the only event that's allowed to mean that its semi-protection can expire is if there's official information that it will get its permanent name)?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I initially requested PC in the hopes that it would reduce bad edits while still allowing some constructive edits from new or unregistered users. Given that at least one revert is made per day, though, and the frequency of these edits seemingly increasing, I would definitely support semi-protection. All 24 edits since 30 November revolved around this issue; it's definitely gotten worse since a few months ago.
Courtesy pinging Favonian, the admin who applied PC; let's see what they think about this. ComplexRational (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Georgia guy and ComplexRational: Thank you! I have semi-protected the article for a month. The one-year PC protection will remain in place when the semi-protection expires. Favonian (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"Lightest"? or Heaviest?

From "history": "Ununennium and unbinilium (elements 119 and 120) are the lightest elements that have not yet been synthesized..."

Wouldn't these in fact be the heaviest elements yet synthesized? Is in not true that as atomic number increases, so does atomic mass -- at least for all elements known so far? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. If they (E119 and E120) were synthesized, they would indeed be the heaviest, but the heaviest element that has yet been synthesized is element 118 (oganesson). Of course atomic mass increases with atomic number. As it stands, E119 is the element with the lowest atomic number (or the lightest, but I really should change this) that has not yet been synthesized; this wording admittedly could be improved but it is not wrong. ComplexRational (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Infobox ununennium isotopes}}

FYI Template:Infobox ununennium isotopes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ununennium/Archive_1&oldid=1211018188"