Talk:Unbiunium

Unbiunium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 6, 2011	Articles for deletion	Kept
May 2, 2017	Articles for deletion	Speedily kept
June 19, 2017	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 1 May 2017, see discussion.
Keep, 27 February 2011, see discussion.

Stub?

I changed the the rating to stub, as "5" is not a rating. Beast of traal T C 22:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Beast of traal[reply]

Electron Configuration

Unbiunium's electron configuration will not be [2, 8, 18, 32, 33, 18, 8, 2], it will be [2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 9, 2]. That is clearly wrong. 86.138.142.213 (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is the electron configuration of 5g^1 that is wrong. Analogous to Lanthanum and Actinium, one electron in the d-block occurs first, and then the f-block starts. I think the same thing might occur here, where one 7d^1 electron occurs first, before the g-block (in fact I believe one d electron fills, then one f electron, then the g-block, then the rest of the f-block, then the rest of the d-block.) 99.175.101.245 (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It'll actually probably be [2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 8, 3]. Double sharp (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2-8-18-32-32-18-8-2

It is probably possible for there to be >120 protons, but when there are 120 electrons, extra electrons probably wouldn't orbit causing the atom to stay as an ion.

207.6.81.95 (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Mr. Anonymous[reply]

Pm + Nd=Ubu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.123.136 (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely at all. The probability of fusion decreases very quickly as the projectile grows in size relative to the target. Double sharp (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Well, E121 and E122 are the last elements for which we have predictions. Unfortunately, they are basically limited to: 1st IE, chemically like the element above them (Ac and Th respectively), and electron configurations relativistically stabilized 8p orbitals (though the dⁿs² electron configurations of Ac and Th should be the first excited states of E121 and E122), and electron affinity for E121 (La: 0.33 eV, Ac: 0.35 eV, E121: 0.57 eV). Nothing like the wealth of predictions you can find for E119 and E120.

This list contains refs for both E121 and E122.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/109/10/10.1063/1.476995 (121)
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/51/2/10.1063/1.1672080 (and the next few superactinides' EC's; the main point is the relativistic stabilization of 8p)
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/53/6/10.1063/1.1674338 (showing that 8s and then 7d get stabilized, sacrificing the 5g one would expect)
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0953-4075/35/7/307/meta;jsessionid=FE348596ABCF1477381FE1BA5F4FC071.c1 (122)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375947415001463 (very recent article, going to 121 and 122: can anyone access it? The abstract promises some chemistry, so finally we may have enough for an article).
- Don't worry, I got it (thanks R8R)! Double sharp (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
https://books.google.com.ru/books?id=K2y5BgAAQBAJ (despite the title, contains also a brief discussion of the energy levels of 121 and 122).

I also note that the most common names for these two elements, besides of course "element 121" and "element 122", are in fact "eka-actinium" and "eka-thorium": you can find these in many of the papers I linked above. So, proof for those who insist that eka-Ac and eka-Th must be E141 and E142 (although if one thinks that way, one probably hasn't seen Fricke's paper, so the insistence would be for E139 and E140). Double sharp (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009261416306984

There may soon be enough for an article, but I don't think the time has come quite yet. Double sharp (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the predicted atomic weight is not given in Fricke, but is given in the source I linked immediately above (320 amu). Double sharp (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1609/1609.05495.pdf
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.0498.pdf
https://books.google.com/books?id=lUC7CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA292&lpg=PA292&dq=254Es+%2B+50Ti&source=bl&ots=gLGEumPWXm&sig=XGWl84tiTJkbpZpspl0IYOCYLto&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigiPfXqcnTAhWCr48KHc8cChUQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=254Es%20%2B%2050Ti&f=false
http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/36/115/36115264.pdf
http://inspirehep.net/record/1221632/files/jpconf13_413_012002.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/K_Santhosh/publications

Double sharp (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another one: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00894-021-04861-7 Double sharp (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article nomination (2017)

The following discussion 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.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Geojournal (talk · contribs) 22:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to review this article in a timely fashion. Thank you for the nomination. Geo ^talk 22:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Geojournal: Sorry to bother you if you're busy, but it's been over a month now: are you still planning to conduct this review soon? Double sharp (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This review has not received any comments in two weeks. Additionally, the reviewer has not made any edits anywhere in over a month. I'll be taking over. Parcly Taxel 04:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Problems found and corrected

Heavier elements, beginning with element 121, would likely be too short-lived to be detected with current technology: they would decay within a microsecond, before reaching the detectors; however, the precise location of the one-microsecond border of half-lives is not known and may allow the synthesis of elements 121 through 124, with the exact limit depending on the model chosen for predicting nuclide masses. The sentence feels like it could be split in two.
Perhaps the most plausible way of reaching the centre of the island with current technology is to reach nuclides like ²⁹⁹Uue, ²⁹⁵Ts, and ²⁹⁵Lv whose alpha daughters are near enough to the island to undergo electron capture to add the necessary neutrons; nonetheless, the island is expected to be centred around copernicium, element 112, and thus this would not be of much help synthesising elements beyond 118. Weasel, and also unnecessary because of the "plausible".
The 8p electron of unbiunium is expected to be very loosely bound, so that its predicted ionisation energy of 4.45 eV is actually lower than that of the alkali metal of period 8, ununennium (4.53 eV), and is in fact lower than those of all known elements except for the alkali metals potassium, rubidium, caesium, and francium. Still awkward.
Unbiunium may hence be somewhat like lawrencium in having an anomalous s²p configuration replacing the expected ds² thanks to relativistic effects, but not having that affect its chemistry: the bond dissociation energies, bond lengths, and polarisabilities of the UbuF molecule are expected to continue the trend down group 3. "Thanks"?
- I was reading too much stuff in French and directly translated grâce à. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Now we have only radium left. Parcly Taxel 04:04, 19 June 2017 (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.

22:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions