Talk:Isotopes of mercury

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isotopes of mercury. 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) 14:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutron–proton ratio of ²⁰⁴Hg

It should be noted in the chart that ²⁰⁴Hg has the highest N/Z ratio of any known stable isotope at 1.55 (mentioned in the Wikipedia article Neutron–proton ratio). ²¹⁶Po has even higher N/Z ratio than ²⁰⁴Hg, but it is very unstable with respect to alpha decay, with a half-life of only 145 ms. 2A04:CEC0:11CD:6609:1C53:ACAC:ED4F:9F39 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we're counting unstable isotopes, then probably a better comparison is ²³⁸U at 1.59. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible alpha decay of several isotopes of mercury

²⁰³Hg through ²⁰⁶Hg are the only alpha-stable isotopes of mercury.

According to [1], ¹⁹²Hg (N = 112) and ¹⁹⁴Hg (N = 114) should respectively have a partial alpha decay half-life of at least 10¹¹ years and 10¹⁸ years. Note that the alpha decay energy of ¹⁹⁴Hg is 2.70 MeV, which is lower than 3.27 MeV of its alpha product ¹⁹⁰Pt and 2.82 MeV of its double alpha product ¹⁸⁶Os. Also ¹⁹²Hg has lower alpha decay energy than its daughter ¹⁸⁸Pt (3.38 MeV vs. 4.01 MeV).

According to [2], ¹⁹⁶Hg should have an alpha decay half-life at the order of 10³² years. Note that the alpha decay energy is 2.038 MeV, which is lower than 2.4239 MeV of its alpha product ¹⁹²Pt and 2.1432 MeV of its double alpha product ¹⁸⁸Os.

The alpha decay energy of ²⁰⁷Hg is only 984.3 keV, so alpha decay may be possible but with a very long partial half-life beyond imagination.

According to the link above, ²⁰⁸Hg (decay energy = 2.4002 MeV), ²¹⁰Hg and ²¹²Hg should respectively have an alpha decay half-life at the order of 10²² years, 10²⁶ years and 10²⁷ years. The alpha decay partial half-life of ²¹²Hg is 41 orders of magnitude longer than that of ²¹²Po despite having an energy 36.0786 MeV higher. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The atomic masses of ^212-216Hg are certainly incorrect

According to the current data, are you trying to tell me that the beta decay energy of ²¹⁶Hg is 170 MeV? 129.104.241.231 (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done All the masses are corrected with values from AME2020 II. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 07:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! 129.104.241.231 (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Neutron–proton ratio of 204Hg

Possible alpha decay of several isotopes of mercury

The atomic masses of 212-216Hg are certainly incorrect

Neutron–proton ratio of ²⁰⁴Hg

The atomic masses of ^212-216Hg are certainly incorrect