Talk:Isotopes of americium

Accuracy?

Parameter	Value
Atomic mass	241.056829 u
Mass excess	52930 keV
Beta decay energy	-767 keV
Spin	5/2-
Half-life	432.6 years
Spontaneous fissions	1200 per kg s
Decay heat	114 watts/kg

This table was introduced by an IP address in the first edit of the americium-141 page, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Americium-241&diff=284520972&oldid=143366139

The validity or meaning was questioned on the talk page Talk:Americium-241. (Note: merging was done without placing notices or linking to the old talk pages, making it hard to trace edits.) Where does the beta decay come from?? I was looking for info on ²⁴¹Am decay, but the Americium page seems to give better info. Ssscienccce (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Isotopes of americium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive {newarchive} to http://typhoon.jaea.go.jp/icnc2003/Proceeding/paper/6.5_022.pdf

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).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Isotopes of americium. 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) 23:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am242m section

Whoever wrote this section does not have a good grasp of fission. All fissile materials can (and sometimes are) made into thin films as part of a fuel element. The key bit the author seems to be missing is that THIS example is based on an infinite reactor, not a single element, which is how other fuels and fuel elements are evaluated. This is also for the thermal (i.e. moderated) critical mass, which is different from the bare sphere mass. Comparing this critical mass with the generally given Pu239 figure is not appropriate. Kylesenior (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Figure "Actinides and fission products by half-life"

This figure includes Ra-226 among the actinides which is not correct. It forms by actinide decay but is not an actinide. Will it form in significant amounts in spent fuel? It might be significant given the large amount of U-238 but given its half-life it will still be far from equilibrum.150.227.15.253 (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The figure should have a footnote explaining that radium is added because of its relatively long half-life. ²²⁶Ra has a longer half-life than any Ac isotope and a comparable half-life to various isotopes of Th, Am, Cm, and Cf, and while the absolute quantity of ²²⁶Ra is still much less than ²³⁸U, it does exist in secular equilibrium in any U sample. ComplexRational (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

²³⁴Am: Spin 0−?

That looks impossible as ²³⁴Am as an odd-odd nuclide, but I'm not sure. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I found that ¹⁶B, ²²N, ¹⁶F, ⁵⁰K, ⁹⁰Rb, ⁹²Rb, ⁹⁶Y, ⁹⁸Y, ¹¹⁶Ag, ¹³⁴Sb, ¹⁴⁴Pr, ... also have spin 0−. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the data for ²²³Am is fake

²²³Am has 128 neutrons, which should make it have a half-live on the order of nanoseconds like the other N=128 isotones (e.g. ²¹²Po, ²¹⁶Ra, ²¹⁹Pa), rather than the 10 milliseconds given on the page. Also, the article does not cite any source about ²²³Am, and it also seems suspicious that ²²³Am would have been discovered before anything from 224-228. This leads me to believe that ²²³Am has never been discovered, and all info about it should be removed from this article. 24.115.255.37 (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that a source used to be listed for ²²³Am but was removed in this revision. Anyway, my point still stands that the data for ²²³Am is most likely fake. 24.115.255.37 (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found that at least one study casts doubt on these observations and I will add it to the article. Definitely anomalous data, though I also suppose it's not impossible for a relatively long-lived isomer to exist analogous to ^212mPo. ^Complex/_Rational 00:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. And thanks for adding that note. 24.115.255.37 (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long-lived isomers

"This isomer is unusual in that its half-life is far longer than that of the ground state of the same isotope." Really unusual? As isomers usually have high spins, beta decays are generally largely hindered (and beta decay is the main enemy against odd-odd nuclides), so an isomer just have to overcome IT to become long-lived. Other than ^242mAm we have also ^186mRe and ^192m2Ir, and even ^180mTa and ^210mBi whose IT is also greatly hindered. 80.215.153.158 (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy?

External links modified

External links modified

Am242m section

Figure "Actinides and fission products by half-life"

234Am: Spin 0−?

I think the data for 223Am is fake

Long-lived isomers

²³⁴Am: Spin 0−?

I think the data for ²²³Am is fake