Talk:Oganesson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oganesson. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20180115184921/http://www.kernchemie.uni-mainz.de/downloads/che_7/presentations/borschevsky.pdf to http://www.kernchemie.uni-mainz.de/downloads/che_7/presentations/borschevsky.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 23:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Whereas correctly archived, I believe we should take this reference off the article - if the results were published we must cite the publication; if the results were never published than the link is not a reliable source and does not confirm the statement.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The result for element 114 was published here. I have unfortunately not yet found a publication of the result for element 112, though it is not terribly surprising since Hg also has no electron affinity. Double sharp (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oganesson. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140823092101/http://archive.dailycal.org/article.php?id=21871 to http://archive.dailycal.org/article.php?id=21871

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) 23:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Ionization of Oganesson

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.

---

Isn't oganesson the most ionized element of all? Porygon-Z 20:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what you mean by "most ionized" (ionization energy, oxidation state, or even atomic number), and in any case, the chemistry of oganesson has not yet been studied. ComplexRational (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

should the ionization energy of Og technically be theoretically higher than any other element in the periodic table? Porygon-Z 13:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

Certainly not; assuming first ionisation energies, the maximum is for helium, as ionisation energy increases going up (because the removed electron is then closer to the nucleus) and to the right (consider effective nuclear charges) on the periodic table. Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

So helium would have the highest ionization energy, Right? Porygon-Z 17:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Helium has the highest first ionisation energy of all elements, yes. Double sharp (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Then why is it considered a noble gas if it has the highest ionization energy? It should have compounds, right? Porygon-Z 13:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No; high first ionisation energy means that it takes a lot of energy to remove even the mostly loosely bound electron, and this is hence almost always unprofitable. Since helium and the other noble gases (save Og, which is probably not really a noble gas) also all have negative electron affinity, they have little tendency to gain or lose electrons and hence little tendency to enter chemical compounds. Double sharp (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Then what element has the highest ionization energy? If it's not Fr, Og, or He, is it Hydrogen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

As I said earlier, helium has the highest first ionisation energy. Caesium has the lowest. Ionisation energy generally increases going up and to the right, so the lowest ionisation energy should be expected at the bottom-left corner of the table and the highest at the top-right. (But the lowest is found at Cs instead of Fr because relativistic effects become significant for Fr and reverse the trend slightly.) Double sharp (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

P.S. You may sort the first 122 elements by first ionisation energy at Molar ionization energies of the elements (data for the heaviest elements is predicted). Double sharp (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Then is the heavier the element, the more it reverses the trend more? Would Uue reverse it even more? Porygon-Z 19:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, element 119 should have a higher first ionisation energy than Fr. (OTOH, element 173 should have a lower first ionisation energy than even Cs.) Double sharp (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Can they add electrons to make it more stable or would that not work? Porygon-Z — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Electronic structure has nothing to do with the stability of the nucleus, so if I understand what you are proposing correctly, it should have no effect. Double sharp (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Then what determines the ionization of elements? Is it neutrons? Porygon-Z 19:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

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.

"Organesson" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Organesson. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Unonoctium" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Unonoctium. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Half-life of Oganesson

The text of this article says both "A half-life [for Og-294] of 0.89 ms was calculated" and "In a quantum-tunneling model, the alpha decay half-life of 294 Og was predicted to be 0.66 ms". In contrast, in the infobox at upper right, under the section "Main isotopes of oganesson", there is shown half-life for Og-294 of 0.69 ms. Another possibility: a half-life of 1.15 ms, which is given in NUBASE2016 of the Atomic Mass Data Center, Intl. Atomic Energy Agency (http://amdc.impcas.ac.cn/nubase/2017audi03.pdf). As far as I can tell, all of these numbers come either from measurements of the 5-6 atoms that were synthesized at Dubna, or from modeling; the measurements would normally be better except there are so few of them. What's the best half-life to use here? DKMell (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@DKMell: The most recently published values should be used whenever possible. For ²⁹⁴Og, these would be 0.69 ms and 1.15 ms. The problem now is deciding which of these to use: NUBASE always gives symmetrized values (1.15±0.47 ms), while most journal articles measure error differently, so we have 0.69+0.64
−0.24 ms. I also am not sure how much data was used to obtain each value. Additionally, it seems that neither paper considers the data from a 2015-16 experiment, but the 0.69 ms value appears in many recent reliable sources. That said, I'd say to use that value, and maybe add a note with NUBASE's value, noting the discrepancy. (Unless a more recent source with another value is found.) ComplexRational (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I've heard of Oganesson's name pronounced oh-guh-NESS-on but I say it oh-GAN-es-son. Are both correct? UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Definitely stressed on the third syllable: Collins, Merriam-Webster. Double sharp (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

So oh-ga-NESS-on? Is oh-GAN-es-son okay? UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Uuo

@Jasper Deng: in this edit you reverted my addition to the lead of "known before it was discovered as Ununoctium (Uuo) or element 118". My edit summary was "Former names into the lead (these terms redirect here)". The redirect Uuo is used in the order of 40 times per month [1] and Ununoctium is used sometimes over 1000 times per month [2]. Is it reasonable that these thousands of users should have to scroll down to the Naming section to determine why those redirects target this page? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it actually is quite reasonable, because those names are not supposed to be used any more now that a trivial name has been selected, the old names were always explicitly provisional (so people should not be too surprised at why the redirect goes here; it must be that the element got a real name), and they are all derived directly from the atomic numbers (which are in the lede) anyway. As older periodic tables get replaced the number should only dwindle as people learn the updated names: just see the stats for Ununquadium (= flerovium, named 2012; less than 200 times per month), Ununbium (= copernicium, named 2010; now less than 120 times per month); Ununnilium (= darmstadtium, named 2003; now counting in the teens).

If we were going to be consistent about it, then logically all the elements from 104 would need a statement like this, because they had systematic names that were used for a time. But I think that would be far too much detail for names that are deprecated. Double sharp (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this reasoning; redirects and brief mentions later in the article are sufficient. Also keep in mind that the systematic names from 104–109 haven't been used for over 20 years, so those are especially unlikely to be useful in the lead. ComplexRational (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

We could add this to the infobox (only), as an alt name not bold. But I must note: in literature, this name/symbol is not used often. Usually, older publications use "element 118" and even notations like "²⁹³118" for the isotope.

Also, maybe more relevant: readers who arrive here through redirect Ununoctium or Uuo are already helped out. There is no need to explain "let us help you with where you came from". This is a basic property of Redirects, in this case. -DePiep (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

As older periodic tables are updated (and old sites die), we should see less of this over time. I'm barely old enough to remember when 110 was blank, and in fact my first periodic table had "unnilhexium" on it (and called 105 "hahnium"). It went up to unnilennium and 110 wasn't on there. Later on I looked up this mysterious element 110 to see if seven-year-old me could propose a name and discovered it had already been named, as had 111. 112 was still ununbium, though. Now I haven't used that name in ten years and mentioning "ununbium" feels wrong now. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 21:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I added a full concordance for the old names to Systematic element name. Double sharp (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Why Oganesson is introduced as Russian American scientist, when he is Armenian?

Why oganesson is introduced as Russian and American scientist when he is Armenian 62.89.17.85 (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

His ethnicity is Armenian, but not his nationality. Ymblanter (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)