Talk:Livermorium/Archive 1

Archive 1

Need longer half-life for chemical properties to make sense

I've deleted the following text:

It is believed to be a brittle metal melting at around 300-400 degrees and vaporising readily.

(in Elementbox) appearance: unknown, probably silvery white or metallic gray

(in Elementbox) phase: presumably a solid

Unless someone finds an isotope with a half-life significantly longer than 61 ms, there is no hope of having enough of the stuff to have any chemical properties. Furthermore, no source is cited even for the speculations. Kingdon 13:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

(random heading)

(inserted for readability Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC))

Elementbox converted 11:33, 15 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 18:26, 2 July 2005).

---

"melting at around 300-400 degrees", what units? Fahrenheid or Celsius? Kelvin would be even better --BlackShift 13:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with BlackShift. Someone who knows has to address the subject --Ultrafan 13:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

---

from VfD:

Delete - more duplicative speculative sciencecruft. The article admits that evidence for this is fabricated and that its main role is in ufo conspiricy. Trollminator 20:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep DCEdwards1966 20:58, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep; The article notes that one announcement of the discovery was based on falsified data - that doesn't address the Dubna results, which are not - to the best of my knowledge - seriously challenged. It's "main role" - you're being duplicitous again, as this is the "in popular culture" section. It exists. It is chemically very significant (the "island of stability" has been a major target of nucleosynthesis work). It's an element. It's notable. Shimgray 21:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I suspect the request is trolling. Pakaran (ark a pan) 21:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Of all the noteworthy articles recently listed by Trollminator, this is a completely bogus VfD and clear abuse of the VfD process. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 21:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Much of vfd is clear abuse by the lister. Mark Richards 22:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep fvw* 23:07, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Keep. Vandal posting. --jpgordon{gab} 00:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Obvious keep, not that you need another vote at this point, but here you go. Antandrus 00:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, Though I'm not a physicist, I've heard of the physicists' speculations on these elements. RickK 06:32, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly encyclopedic. Abuse of VfD. jni 09:25, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep it. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think its Vfd abuse at all. Please assume good faith. The Steve 20:57, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks real enough to me. Jayjg 21:41, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Certainly notable. Delete the lister. --Idont Havaname 00:54, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep What's more, this VfD seems to me to be the first case I have seen for a speedy delete of a VfD. Stirling Newberry 15:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep for the same reasons mentioned by me in ununbium. --Andrew 20:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:41, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep article, delete VfD submitter. —tregoweth 18:40, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

"historically known?"

"Ununhexium is historically known as eka-polonium."

What does "historically known" mean when talking about something only discovered over the last ten years? Wanderer57 (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The phrase seems to be speculative and not necessarily founded. "Eka-Aluminium" for Gallium, "Eka-Silicon" for Germanium, etc, could certainly be attested by citation, but it is not at all certain that "Eka-Polonium" was ever used in place of the more probable modern "Element 116" or "Ununhexium". I cowardly asked for a ^{[citation needed]}. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

@Wanderer57: There have been theoretical speculations about the element long before it was actually discovered (see link below), so this name may have been used to talk about it.

@Rursus: The name was occasionally used (e.g. by Seaborg: [1]), but apparently rather rarely. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, then let's use that ref in the article! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

(Moscovium)

With the coming naming of 116Uuh as moscovium, has anyone seen any sources on the proposed chemical symbol, or are they leaving that to IUPAC after the Cp/Cn copernicium fiasco? One of the physics discussion fora suggests that they go with Mc, as it would be read 'em cee' in Latin script for MosCovium, and as 'em ess' in Cyrillic scripts for МоСковий.130.111.163.179 (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't know; we need to wait for the official announcement from the IUPAC, which will probably be reported in Nature very soon afterward. Note that this page states "the scientists from the Dubna-Livermore collaborations are invited to propose a name for the two super-heavy elements, elements 114 and 116. The suggested names will then go through a review process before adoption by the IUPAC Council", so keep an eye on this page, under the "News" heading. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The officially submitted name is livermorium with the symbol Lv

see http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/01/9144420-fl-and-lv-headed-for-periodic-table

166.250.0.16 (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there we are. Good thing we didn't move this page prematurely; but we should still hold off moving until the official confirmation in (apparently) five months' time. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Flerovium/ livermorium approved

http://www.iupac.org/news/news-detail/article/element-114-is-named-flerovium-and-element-116-is-named-livermorium.html Names now official, article should be moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.187.199 (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I moved the element pages and updated them with the new name. If anyone wants to assist in renaming these elements where they are used within the text of other articles, that would be very helpful. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

below link

The elementbox template on this page says "(Uhh)" is "below" Livermorium. I can't find the symbol Uhh anywhere. What is it? -- Mikeblas (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Look at the extended periodic table, the element unhexhexium (atomic number 166) is below livermorium. PlanetStar 21:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Appearance of livermorium

I know that the appearance of Livermorium is unknown, but should it be added that it is "most likely metallic" seeing as it is a transition metal with a reference to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdbF4L_ruyM (Periodic table of videos "Livermorium")? Radiotrefoil (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No, YouTube videos are not usually reliable sources. And livermorium is no transition metal already by the latter's definition, even if it should turn out to be a metal. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The only way I could see these videos being a reliable source is for the pronunciation of the element name, since oddly IUPAC does not seem to recommend one. Double sharp (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ref for 8s subshell involvement in LvH₂

• [2] Double sharp (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Warning to anyone who decides to start rewriting this article before I do: this is the least theoretically studied of all the 7p elements. You're going to have serious problems finding sources for speculations other than the ones in the infobox. (I tried! It's actually difficult!) Double sharp (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Name

Is there a proposed name, like Element 113? --myselfalso 02:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes: moscovium. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The name proposed to IUPAC is now livermorium. Double sharp (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest any discussion of the IUPAC three letter naming system be moved to the appropriate entries Systematic_element_name, Transfermium_Wars and List_of_chemical_elements_naming_controversies, this is not the proper place as the subject would need to be repeated for all elements with Z>103. Moreover, the present phrase "These recommendations were largely ignored..." needs to be put into proper context, i.e. the IUPAC was trying to resolve a very tricky situation with rivalling groups not agreeing, a controversy that was further fuelled by the cold war. It is true that scientist in the field, for various reasons, largely ignored the letter, if not the spirit, of this temporary naming convention, but it was used and reprinted by highly respected scientist in countless textbooks of chemistry. LRO 19:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrohrstrom (talk • contribs)

Fair point. The distinction between Z ≤ 105 and Z > 105 seems to be important, though: for 101–105, I think names were announced shortly after claimed discoveries and they were then used by the respective teams. So you would have the American team calling 104 "rutherfordium" and the Soviet one calling it "kurchatovium". But above that, wasn't "element X" the form used in the literature for quite some time after the discoveries? (In the American response to the TWG paper Sg was still called element 106, as I recall.) So for most of the elements the systematic names would not have been a way of remaining neutral, because there were no other options save for "element X"; and while periodic tables in textbooks largely followed IUPAC, scientists in the field largely ignored the systematic names. Am I right about this? Double sharp (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

re produced vs detected

@Nergaal: I don't know if you're just trying to be extremely precise, but I doubt this comment was called for, especially since the scientists themselves who discovered these elements use "produced". Of course the detection rate is not 100%. However it seems to me that the key point in the discovery of these elements is that they were synthesized/produced, not that they were detected; and using the latter word is IMHO not an improvement, because it distances the scientists from the context and places the emphasis on detection, and forces a more convoluted phrasing. And with the word "about", doesn't it already account for this?

P.S. I notice that, despite your scrutiny of that passage re 35 atoms (which I took straight from the original unrewritten article on the model of copernicium), you didn't notice the one thing I just realized about it when I looked at it: it's not cited and is never verified in the lede. So I took it out. Double sharp (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

From a scientific point of view, they were "measured" or "observed". For example, during the unsuccessful discoveries of SHE, one cannot exclude that some meta-stable were produced but did not live to reach the instruments. Nergaal (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes they were measured/observed, but I think the more important thing for the lede is that they were produced. Aren't all the elements observed?

Yes, you can't exclude that. However, most of these metastable atoms wouldn't count as having been produced in any case, because they would simply have fissioned straight away and would have had no internal nuclear structure (that's necessary for counting it as a nuclide) – this happens for excitation energies that are too high. And even for those that were and simply didn't last the necessary 10⁻⁶ s to reach the detector: yes it is possible, but as you have no evidence for those atoms it seems the simpler hypothesis that they weren't produced. In any case, the "about" should have rendered this moot, as should the removal of this sentence. Double sharp (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that stating in the that only 35 atoms were produced and measured is quite relevant to a casual reader, as it might look strange what is all the fuss over only 35 pieces of matter. My only concern is that saying 35 were produced is in some ways misleading. I was trying to find a way to emphasize that that many were counted by detectors. Nergaal (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the number is slightly off, but definitely not misleadingly so. I could imagine 10 to 20 going unnoticed, but in the end 35 atoms vs. 55 atoms is no big deal at all: neither even comes close to being microscopic. At this high an atomic number all of them are produced only on the atomic scale and 35 (I'm not even sure if this number is right) is a big deal! I agree that this should be made clear somehow, but am not sure how to do it short of repeating the same sentence in every element from 101 onward, and even doing that isn't going to help the lede so much... Double sharp (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 14:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this; I'll add comments below as I go through the article.

• "the synthesis of superheavy atoms, including ununoctium": should be "including livermorium", presumably?
  • Both are important, I think. E118 would be produced first and would decay to Lv. Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• "the synthesized flerovium isotope was actually 289Lv": should be "289Fl".
  • Yup, overenthusiastic copy-paste corrections. Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• "between April–May 2001": between doesn't work with a dash like that; maybe "between April and May 2001" or "during".
  • Changed to "during". Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• I had to read the first paragraph of "Road to confirmation" several times. I began trying to rewrite it but I couldn't be certain of a couple of points. Does "This flerovium isotope has not been observed again in a repeat of the same reaction" mean that that particular decay chain hasn't been observed, or that no decay chain thought to indicate that isotope has been observed? And "later it was found that 289Fl did not have these decay properties": does that mean that that decay chain was found not to occur for 289Fl when that isotope was successfully detected? "However, its detection in this series of experiments": "it" means the decay chain, not the isotope, correct? And "in which the first alpha particle was not detected": what does "first" refer to? Is there any reason not to give the whole decay chain in this article?
  • I'm not too sure how to phrase this: it's a confusing situation and the language I used seems to be even more confusing! I tried to rewrite this. About the decay chain, I thought about it, but decided against it because the only important isotopes in it for this discussion are the parent ²⁹³Lv and its immediate daughter ²⁸⁹Fl. Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

    Much better. I still don't understand one sentence: "This second possibility is rendered more plausible by the fact that the alpha decay of 293Lv was missed" -- can you clarify? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

    • I tried to clear it up even more. Double sharp (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

      That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Does the next paragraph mean that the Joint Working Party acknowledged copernicium-283 but not livermorium-291, from which it was derived? Or were there other pathways for the creation of copernicium-283, so that the livermorium pathway was not critical to the recognition? Later in the paragraph you say that the data from the earlier experiments was found inconclusive -- was this for the same pathway that created copernicium-283?
  • There were other pathways to make ²⁸³Cn, some only involving Cn, some also involving Fl, and some with Lv as well. But all the data agreed on ²⁸³Cn. IUPAC's usage of the Fl- and Lv-including data to support this conclusion however implied that ²⁹¹Lv was created. The earlier experiments were for different Lv isotopes, not creating ²⁸³Cn. I've tried to explain this in the article. Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

    That's much clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Using Mendeleev's nomenclature for unnamed and undiscovered elements, livermorium is sometimes called eka-polonium": why italics for eka-polonium?
  • Should have been in quotes: oops! Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• You have "Joint Working Group" and "Joint Working Party"; are these different?
  • Apparently not. Normalized to the latter, which IUPAC uses. Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• "Livermorium is expected to be in the middle of an island of stability centered around copernicium (element 112) and flerovium (element 114): the reasons for the presence of this island are however still not well understood." A couple of things here. Surely if the island is centred around 112 and 114, 116 won't be in the middle? If I'm reading the graphic right, the 116 line doesn't intersect the white circle at all. And why "however"? I also think a colon is the wrong punctuation; I'd suggest splitting this into two sentences.
  • Changed to "near". And split into two sentences. Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

    Much better; can we get rid of the "however", though? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

     Done Double sharp (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• What's the meaning of the blue arrow, red and white circle, and the note "No way!" on the diagram?
  • This graphic was hastily taken from a .ppt presentation by an expert in the field as a replacement for a horribly inaccurate one that we used to use. Unfortunately I couldn't remove the arrows, circles, and notes. The white circle is the island of stability. The rest aren't relevant to this article (would be better on unbinilium), but for what it's worth: the blue arrow points to where the next superheavy element isotopes expected to be synthesized would be on the chart. The red circle is just a stylized prohibitory traffic sign, to indicate that this path is blocked because the half-lives beyond E120 get too low to allow detection using current technology. The note says the same thing. Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for removing those unnecessary markings! I've now replaced the image with your improved version. Double sharp (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• The paragraph that discusses cold and hot fusion needs some reorganization. Currently it uses the terms, then defines them, and in fact the definition of cold fusion is given before it's clear that that's what's being defined. In addition the discussion of neutron-rich nuclei makes it appear that actinides are not used in cold fusion; if that's the case, then I don't think there is a definition of cold fusion -- I assumed it was simpler lower energy versions of hot fusion, but perhaps not.
  • Cold fusion usually uses lead and bismuth targets and fuses them with first-row transition metals. Hot fusion usually uses actinide targets and lighter projectiles (up to calcium). Changed it so that the article now defines the terms before actually using them, and added further explanation of cold fusion. Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

    The paragraph is much improved. One more suggestion: move the last sentence (making it clear that this is not the same as cold fusion) to a note, and put the note at the point where you first use the phrase "cold fusion". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

     Done Better? Double sharp (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• "can be accomplished": should we say "can" if this is only theoretical?
  • Changed to "could". Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Suggest linking "magic" to "magic number (physics)".
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• "These effects cause livermorium's chemistry to be somewhat different from that of its lighter congeners": this is almost identical to a phrase used earlier in the same paragraph. I'd cut the earlier one and start the discussion of causes of differences in chemistry with a simpler phrase, such as "Some differences are caused by" or something along those lines. Then the final sentence can stay untouched.
  • Is what I did OK? Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

    That looks fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• There seems to be a fair amount of overlap between the last part of the first paragraph in the "Physical and atomic" section, and the first part of the next paragraph -- discussion of inert pairs, and the notation 7s²
  7p²
  _1/27p²
  _3/2 for example.
  • Is what I did OK? Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• "expected to be volatile enough as pure elements for them to be chemically investigated": what is meant by volatile here? Reactive?
  • No, it has a specialized meaning in chemistry (it means that it vaporizes easily). Linked, and also gave a short parenthetic definition. Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

    I knew that meaning but thought it unlikely since Lv is expected to be a solid; but that's fine. I think the link is enough; I'd cut the parenthesis. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

    OK, cut the parentheses. (Incidentally I didn't expect it to be taken as unlikely, given that its lighter congener polonium is also a very volatile solid at room temperature: I now mention this in the article.) Double sharp (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

-- That's everything I can see on a first pass. I'll place this on hold. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Out of time for tonight; I should be able to return to this tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to continue this review tonight, but I did manage to clean up the image: see File:Island_of_Stablity_derived_from_Sagrebaev.png. Let me know if the area previously obscured by the graphics needs more grey squares. Is this usable in the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this looks great! Replaced image. Double sharp (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

OK -- I've asked for it to be moved on Commons as I made a mistake in the file name. Struck a couple more items above; just one or two points left now. I will see what sources I have access to later today and do a couple of spot checks if I can. Sorry about the delay getting back to this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked at a few sources and couldn't find anything that I have access to, so I'll take it on faith. I'm passing this for GA; congratulations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, just realized I never tested for dead links. Run the link detector at the top of this page and you'll see some dead/inactive links; can you fix those? Once that's done I'll pass this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. That tool lists several, but some of the links it lists seem to be working all right. I've fixed the ones that don't. Double sharp (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks good now. Passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

pb

The article mentions several times a cross section measured in pb, but this unfamiliar unit is not wikilinked. I think this might have something to do with barns - quite possible pico-barns (10^-40 m²), but I'm not sure enough to boldly add the link. Astronaut (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is picobarns. I linked it. Double sharp (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Atomic Radius

In the "Atomic Properties" section in the box, it states, of the atomic radius: "empirical: 183 pm (predicted)"

So, is it empirical (which, I presume means, actually measured somehow), or just predicted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.142.162 (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Predicted, but I don't know how to make the infobox remove "empirical" for the superheavies. Double sharp (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)