This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Welcome.
I like to see any helpful comment, especially about the table grammar. I used raw HTML for the layout of the table. Better to convert it to Wiki-table notation? If yes, which kind? Of cource I present only some typical parts not the whole list at the beginning of this page-birth. :) Regards Achim1999 ( talk) 16:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Is colored emphases okay, to distinguish theoretical values from measured values? Also the meta stable isomeres are indicated by a red m . Achim1999 ( talk) 17:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow! I have a good idea. :) A two-column table with two tables inside: the first only contains fixed numbers , the second the data and make the second one sortable! Achim1999 ( talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, {{
val|MANTISSA,e=EXPONENT}}
-templates seems not to be sortable in wikitables. :-(
And I still don't know how to remove the spacing between the two wikitables inside a table.
I want to know a good trick how to center these nuclide-symbols between their upper mass number and the lower element-symbol. (Make two columns and insert an invisible character of width 0 to be centered?)
{{help me}}
technically regarding wikitables (user css necessary?) - I already asked at three different places in WP - and new problems turn up if I try to circumvent the previous.
Achim1999 (
talk)
16:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes. To be exactly, three. These I wrote in the above paragraph started from "Sadly ..." {{ helpme}}
{{
val|MANTISSA,e=EXPONENT}}
-templates be sortable in wikitables?If yes, how?
SOLVED *) How to remove the spacing between the two wikitables inside a table? SOLVED
For reference of the wikitables actually in use see the page "Table of nuclides (sorted by half-life)". Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 09:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I have got a positive feedback by User:Headbomb to use {{ hs}} to add hiden sortable sorting-key to ANY item to make the item sortable generally.
I have at least 5 times read the Help:Table page and also read Help:Sorting and played around an hour in a sandbox to only solve my second question unsuccessfully -- am not a beginner crying for help! :) The first seems to be a Javascript-sorting problem, the other two problems are wikitable problems. Rather pointless to look at talks on pages intended for subject-discussion (of cource you may be lucky by chance there). I get really sad by only been pushed around on WP concerning this technical questions. And I wonder why you deleted my {{ helpme}} when you only suggest other places to ask. :-/ Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 09:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to Achim1999 ( talk) who just solved my 2nd problem. By carefully studying again Help:table I noticed the style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" parameter for wikitable. After some experiments I knew that this indeed controls the spacing of the table as a whole. The 1st and the 3rd controls vertical spacing, and the 2nd and 4th controls horicontal spacing. Setting the 2nd to 0em there where no space following the table, and the 4th arguemnt gives the space before the table (the indent). Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 11:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
My new created {{
Sd1|NUMBER|SYMBOL}}
-template should principlely solve my 3rd problem. But it did not work currently when called inside a wikitable. Any ideas? Regards,
Achim1999 (
talk)
18:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for making some thoughts about my problem. :) The later is, what currently is used. But I want to have it centered about the location between "Number" and "Symbol". This idea how, I got aware of the example in
Help:Table how to center decimal numbers about their decimal point. And if you check you will recognize that this template {{
Sd1|NUMBER|SYMBOL}}
exactly is the given solution in this section, which suggest to use a table in a table!
BTW: A further problem arose when I notice that "wikitable sortable" did not work properly with this representations (numbers are sorted alphabetically not numerically).
Regards,
Achim1999 (
talk)
11:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
There are 4 categories of isotopes, Namely EE, EO, OE, and OO, with the EE,s having the majority of stable isotopes. Also, there are more stable EE's than EO,s and more OE's than OO's So a two column listing starting with the E's on the left side and the O's on the right side and with the stable ones at the top might provide a correlation of the unstable isotopes vis a vis the stable ones. WFPM ( talk) 15:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I think firstly we should take only these 2962 experimentally observed nuclides as base which are listed in the 7th edition of Karlsruher Nuklidkarte, which means a data cut-date of about July 2006. Then further added nuclides should be indicated for each case by a reliable source as has been produced at best by an inline-reference in their row! Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 14:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a disagreement as to the proper location of this article. It was originally located at Table of nuclides (sorted by half-life) and was moved here. Following that the article was moved back to the original location. I have since moved it back here as this is the proper name as it is in line with WP:LISTNAME, which says that article names should start with "List of" rather than "Table of". Also the use of parentheses is unnecessary as they are not needed for disambigution. If there are any issues with my latest move of the page please discuss them here.-- kelapstick ( talk) 18:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
"(sorted by half-life)" was a needed addition to "Table of nuclides" because this is ambiguous! Using your WP-rules strictly, (I guess at least -- prefered means not MUST!), would result in "List of nuclides (sorted by half-life)" and thus should(?) be transformed either into "List of nuclides sorted by half-life" OR "List of nuclides" because there is no need to distinguish between different articles named "List of nuclides". Who started this moving war?
I protested about the autocratic behaviour, doing such an important change whithout any anouncement or not to mention agreement on the article's talk page! This can be verified on User_talk:Nergaal#Annoying behaviour. Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 19:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
BTW: Now I know I had no chance to see the reason of his move, because simply he left no comment in the logs. I changed the name of the page to the short form "List of nuclides" and gave a comment why I did it and recognized that such a comment is visibale for anybody. Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 19:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Tables do not order properly when I click on the header of a column. E.g., 3*10^6 is "larger" than 2*10^12; 100Ru is the lightest nuclide in one table, and 9Be the heaviest. Guess it's just a matter of whether anyone wants to put in the time to format the tables properly. (I sure don't :) ) — kwami ( talk) 01:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed this also Adaviel ( talk) 20:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
This table contains many errors: most of the polonium and americium half-lives are way out. I haven't checked all of the elements but this whole thing needs to be looked at closely. Ordinary Person ( talk) 16:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The energies/masses, as listed contain at least one error. Based on what is presented, Te-130 is actually predicted to be a stable isotope, as the energy given for Xe-130 is actually that for Xe-128. In other words, if I calculate the double-beta decay energy of Te-128 using the energies given in the table for Te-128 and Xe-130 (which of course is "wrong"), I get 2.530 MeV, which is the "right" answer. For Te-130, I cannot get the tabulated double decay energy using any of the listed Xe isotope masses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.17.198.5 ( talk) 01:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Many nuclides should be removed from the table "Other primordial nuclides measured to be radioactive, or decay products identified (Te-130)". When the half-life is shown as ">something" it means in fact that no radioactivity of the nuclide had ever been observed, and only a lower limit on the half-life time is set experimentally. For example, only W-180 was found to be alpha active in experiment, other 4 primordial tungsten isotopes (182, 183, 184 and 186) were not. They are predicted theoretically to be alpha active (with half-lives >>1e30 yr) but any experimental observation of so rare decays is not possible with current methods. If anybody wants to make a table of all kinematically unstable primordial nuclides (i.e. having positive energy release in one or more kinds of decay), there have to be 65 nuclides for β−β− and β+β+ and almost all nuclides with A>150 for alpha and cluster decays. -- V1adis1av ( talk) 07:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
This is the FULL (as for today) list of naturally occurring primordial nuclides which were experimentally found to be radioactive: 40-K (b), 48-Ca (2b), 50-V (b), 76-Ge (2b), 82-Se (2b), 87-Rb (b), 96-Zr (2b), 100-Mo (2b), 113-Cd (b), 116-Cd (2b), 115-In (b), 123-Te (b) 128-Te (2b), 130-Te (2b), 130-Ba (2b), 138-La (b), 144-Nd (a), 150-Nd (2b), 147-Sm (a), 148-Sm (a), 151-Eu (a), 152-Gd (a), 176-Lu (b), 174-Hf (a), 180-W (a), 187-Re (b), 186-Os (a), 190-Pt (a), 209-Bi (a), 232-Th (a, SF), 235-U (a, CE), 238-U (a, 2b, SF). Decays: a is for alpha, b -- for beta (including e-capture and e+), 2b -- for all modes of double beta, SF -- spontaneous fission, CE -- cluster emission. Of course, this list is going to be wider in future with more sensitive experiments; many nuclides were add to it during last two decades (three of them -- with my humble participation). -- V1adis1av ( talk) 14:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC) (I don't mention here 244-Pu because there exist now only tiny traces of this primordial nuclide). -- V1adis1av ( talk) 14:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
As to the ordering, you can see that for the 256 "stable" nuclides it is done by theoretical most probable mode of decay, if it did decay. First are the 90 that are theoretically stable (except to proton decay), then those that are unstable only to spontaneous fission (SF), and so on. If you reorder these, I would ask only to separate out the first 90 (since this isn't done anywhere else) and then the remaining 256-90 = 166 can be done any way you think best. I think it's interesting to do it this way that it's now done, but A,Z as is done in other articles (see also the various table of nuclides articles) is possible. But remember that this is not the only nuclide article, so it's nice if we don't duplicate the way of ordering. The 29 nuclides that were mistakenly separated out will have to go back into the 227 stable nuclides to make 256 classically stable nuclides (actually, putting these 29 back in by hand, involves the most work, so let me know how you want to do the other 166 "possibly radioactive" ones). The next 32 are the known radioactive primordials in the article mentioned above, and I think they should be in order of half-life (as they are in that article), especially since the rest of the list continues that way, with a natural break between Pu-244 and Nb-92. It isn't that much work to renumber these by hand, since if we find a radioactive one, it will just add to this list of 32 and disappear from the list of 256. If you worry, you can reorder the 256 to make sure that the last two or three are the once you suspect of being next to be removed, due to detection of decay. Renumbering the list of 32 priordials is not hard.
I should add to be clear that the category of "known radioactive but halflife unknown" which has 29 members in the summary table, will have to be deleted completely. I'll do that as I can.
Finally, you've listed Ba-130 as a radioactive primordial above. Where is that published? S B H arris 00:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a very interesting question! As well as how it is known that some of the determined "radioactive" EE62Sm146 might have some amount of stable isotopes, with the rest having a slightly higher halflife value? WFPM ( talk) 22:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Dec 10 note. Okay, I've done the separation of the 33 radioactive primordials, from the 28 stables that had lower half-live limits given, but had NOT yet been found to be radioactive. I kind of like having all these where they are at this point, since the latter group has perhaps the 28 best candidates to be found experimentally radioactive in the future. In particular, note that the last three with the shortest time limits are Ce-138, Ce-136, and Os-184. Can you confirm that these are "stable" nuclides under investigation since they have the shortest "calculated" half lives of all the stables? Or are these the shortest limits known by measurement, which is what the article now reads (perhaps incorrectly). In either case, if this is so, then the way this table is set up, is indeed interesting and useful, do you not think? S B H arris 04:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Naturally occurring nuclides with half-lives < 1 h (such as At-214 to 219) are not included in the table, so the claim in the summary table of a "running total" of 905 (including the naturally occurring ones) is apparently false, since the list already has 905 entries without them. -- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 22:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
"Sources" section looks very poorly formatted, unorthodox, and contains a sentence fragment. I'm personally not sure how to bring this up to Wikipedia compliance so I just wanted to point it out. 24.190.8.129 ( talk) 21:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Should this article be just a list? Are there natural sections of nuclides? Is the counting of natural non-primordials (cosmogenics + radiogenics) inappropriate?
Hi
Just recently you added a reference for Xe-136 half-time detection. Unluckily it is the first to break the readability of the table. I would suggest add a further column generally to add references nuclide-specific. Many(!) data are disputable, even in physics review level.
But what is more important, I worry who added this nonsense (to be precise, off-topic and ill-defined) about short-living natural nuclides? Why are they mentioned in this article, at all? It is highly dubious, because any nuclide which can be created by cosmic rays will be produced sooner or later! It is only a question how long and with which effort you try to detect them. Thus, I think almost all sentences where "natural short-living" occured should be deleted in this article, IMHO. :-/
The first paragraph of this message triggered to write this message to you, but I always thought whether and when to expand this list further. I stopped when expanding the list up to half-life of 1 hour, because to my knowledge all nuclides with Z < 96 which will still be dedected will have half-lives < 1 h -- rather good models exist for years (good enough to get these limits). There will surely be further nuclides with Z >= 96 which half-lives > 1 h -- noone knows how many. Critical are the half-lifes of the unknown nuclides Pt-204, Hg-210 and Po-220 (the next are Pu-247, Pu-248, Cm-252) and this status now keeps since more than 10 years. :-( I wonder whether it makes sense to add a new batch of nuclides, all those up to ... X min half-life?
I like to hear your opinion to all 3 points -- I'm afraid there are much too less experts on wikipedia, that it would make sense to add all literature references for the data. Thanks, Achim1999 ( talk) 21:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The objective vs. subjective part comes the sorities paradox where a mere qualitative change becomes a qualitative change. Usually this is because of physiology-- at some temperature a thing goes from warm to HOT! and you get pain where you didn't before. In other cases you exceed a threshhold in human observation power like ability to measure a half live longer than x, and nuclides with longer half lives than that, we call "stable". Of the 255 of these, there are only 90 that are energetically stable. You can see that everything about Nb-41 can fission-- we just haven't seen it. The 6 log disagreement about Xe-136 moves it from a qualitative class to another-- it's not "just" a number thing. When Bi-209 was found radioactive, that was a big thing. It does no good at all you say that Pb-208 is probably radioactive also. We must go by what we have measured, to some extent, in case our theories are wrong.
2) Some short-lived (non-primordial) naturally-occuring nuclides are very important-- atmospheric cosmogenic nuclide Be-7, C-14, Cl-36, I-129 and radiogenic nuclides like radon and radium. You will notice that I didn't put them in a table or even list them, but we probably should somewhere (not by half life, but by abundance or activity in the environment). The total number 339 comes from this source: [1] but it's not set in stone, as these include the classic decay chain radiogenics from thorium, U-235 and U-238, and the most well-known cosmogenics like Be-7 and C-14. You're probably right that everything that can be made cosmogenically will be made in atmosphere and upper crust, but there's a HUGE gap between the longest lived primordial Pu-244 and the longest lived purely upper soil cosmogenics like Al-26, Ca-41, etc. Somebody should add up the cosmogenics easily found, along with decay chain radiogenics easily found (perhaps with half lives over 1000 years?) and put them in a table. I really want common radiogenics + cosmogenics. It will always be expanding, but most tables in Wikipedia are expanding. These are important because they are useful, notable, and have been known for a long time.
3) I'm not adverse to a table with isotopes with half lives shorter than 1 hour, but we have about 1000 now and there are several thousand more known, so it's a big job. But surely cosmogenics and radiogenics in the environment with half lives of thousands or even hundreds of thousand years are more interesting? S B H arris 22:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
You only have about 1100 edits (about 3% of mine), and 20% of what you've done is distribed equally to just two articles-- Noble metal and List of nuclides. [3]. That's too much. You need to diversify and avoid that feeling of ownership. And read WP:OWN. It helps. S B H arris 00:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
H-1, H-2 He-3, He-4 Li-6, Li-7 Be-9 B-10, B-11 C-12, C-13 N-14, N-15 O-16, O-17, O-18 F-19 Ne-20, Ne-21, Ne-22 Na-23 Mg-24, Mg-25, Mg-26 Al-27 Si-28, Si-29, Si-30 P-31 S-32, S-33, S-34, S-36 Cl-35, Cl-37 (Ar-36), Ar-38, Ar-40 K-39, K-41 (Ca-40), Ca-42, Ca-43, Ca-44, (Ca-46) Sc-45 Ti-46, Ti-47, Ti-48, Ti-49, Ti-50 V-51 (Cr-50), Cr-52, Cr-53, Cr-54 Mn-55 (Fe-54), Fe-56, Fe-57, Fe-58 Co-59 (Ni-58), Ni-60, Ni-61, Ni-62, Ni-64 Cu-63, Cu-65 (Zn-64), Zn-66, Zn-67, Zn-68, (Zn-70) Ga-69, Ga-71 Ge-70, Ge-72, Ge-73, Ge-74 As-75 (Se-74), Se-76, Se-77, Se-78, (Se-80) Br-79, Br-81 (Kr-78), Kr-80, Kr-82, Kr-83, Kr-84, (Kr-86) Rb-85 (Sr-84), Sr-86, Sr-87, Sr-88 Y-89 Zr-90, Zr-91, Zr-92, (Zr-94) Nb-93 (Mo-92), Mo-94, Mo-95, Mo-96, Mo-97, (Mo-98) Tc-->No stable isotopes! (Ru-96), Ru-98, Ru-99, Ru-100, Ru-101, Ru-102, (Ru-104) Rh-103 (Pd-102), Pd-104, Pd-105, Pd-106, Pd-108, (Pd-110) Ag-107, Ag-109 (Cd-106), (Cd-108), Cd-110, Cd-111, Cd-112, (Cd-114) In-113 (Sn-112), Sn-114, Sn-115, Sn-116, Sn-117, Sn-118, Sn-119, Sn-120, (Sn-122), (Sn-124) Sb-121, Sb-123 (Te-120), Te-122, Te-124, Te-125, Te-126 I-127 (Xe-124), (Xe-126), Xe-128, Xe-129, Xe-130, Xe-131, Xe-132, (Xe-134) Cs-133 (Ba-132), Ba-134, Ba-135, Ba-136, Ba-137, Ba-138 La-139 (Ce-136), (Ce-138), Ce-140, (Ce-142) Pr-141 Nd-142, (Nd-143), (Nd-145), (Nd-146), (Nd-148) Pm-->No stable isotopes! (Sm-144), (Sm-149), (Sm-150), (Sm-152), (Sm-154) (Eu-153) (Gd-154), (Gd-155), Gd-156, Gd-157, Gd-158, (Gd-160) Tb-159 (Dy-156), (Dy-158), Dy-160, (Dy-161), (Dy-162), (Dy-163), Dy-164 (Ho-165) (Er-162), (Er-164), (Er-166), (Er-167), (Er-168), (Er-170) (Tm-169) (Yb-168), (Yb-170), (Yb-171), (Yb-172), (Yb-173), (Yb-174), (Yb-176) (Lu-175) (Hf-176), (Hf-177), (Hf-178), (Hf-179), (Hf-180) (Ta-180m), (Ta-181) (W-182), (W-183), (W-184), (W-186) (Re-185) (Os-184), (Os-187), (Os-188), (Os-189), (Os-190), (Os-192) (Ir-191), (Ir-193) (Pt-192), (Pt-194), (Pt-195), (Pt-196), (Pt-198) (Au-197) (Hg-196), (Hg-198), (Hg-199), (Hg-200), (Hg-201), (Hg-202), (Hg-204) (Tl-203), (Tl-205) (Pb-204), (Pb-206), (Pb-207), (Pb-208) Bi or heavier-->No more stable isotopes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.126.202.81 ( talk) 15:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
In http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.3716.pdf the half life of tellurium-130 is given as 7.0*10^20 years, which is 2.2*10^28 seconds. The table says 2.777*10^26 seconds, which is a bit small. I'm aware that it's not possible to update this table every time a new result is found, but this is a significant difference. Also the decay energy seems too small. The Interactive Chart of Nuclides (Brookhaven National Laboratory) gives 2.527510 MeV whereas the table gives 0.868 MeV. Mollwollfumble ( talk) 07:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
How is its binding energy so high? The quoted value is higher than that of 56Fe! Is the initial "1" a mistake? Double sharp ( talk) 12:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The decay mode explanation before the tables includes some entries which (as far as I can tell) are never used in the tables, and misses some entries which are. Specifically:
Recently discovered at GSI (7 alpha decays from confirmed 294117): half-life 11 h. Needs to be added (making it 902 nuclides now). Double sharp ( talk) 11:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
This page loads in less than a second, and has no performance issues. This page has 740 repetitive instances of a scientific notation like 1.2345×1016.
When this page showed up on Wbm1058's performance patrol logs, I replaced the 740 template calls like
{{val|1.2345|e=16}}
→ 1.2345×1016with straight html like
We then ran some tests and made some improvements to Val, to bring a 20-sec load time to 8 sec.
I just now tried replacing those same 740 calls with
Even though {{e}} specializes in the exact cases mentioned above, it took 4 sec. to load.
I will save an e version to the database, for a possible use, but this page is perfect for html, and to my knowledge no "general" template can complete with html performance at this concentration. (Maybe a specific, targeted module, not sure.) Look for the val and e versions in the history near the edit summary "template e version". Perhaps when Val is transformed into a Lua module, we'll be back. — Cpiral Cpiral 04:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
{{ Val}} as a Lua module is back, and loads in under 3 seconds. — Cpiral Cpiral 16:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
For the 640 nuclides in the list with half-life > 1 hour I have compared the reported values with those in the latest NUBASE2012 database (G. Audi et al., `The NUBASE2012 evaluation of nuclear properties', Chinese Physics C, Vol. 36, No. 12, 2012), which are believe are more recent than the ones in the table. Agreement is very good. For 600 nuclides agreement between NUBASE2012 and the present table is better than 1% and for 627 nuclides is better than 10%. Of the 13 remaining nuclides whose half-lives differ by more than 10% five have huge half-lives > 2e26 seconds. Here are the remaining 8 nuclides, decending order of half-life:
Nuclide | Table | NUBASE2012 | diff as % |
---|---|---|---|
Sm-146 | 3.25E+15 | 2.15E+15 | 51.5 |
Tc-97 | 8.20E+13 | 1.33E+14 | -38.3 |
Se-79 | 9.31E+12 | 1.06E+13 | -11.9 |
Ni-59 | 2.40E+12 | 3.19E+12 | -24.7 |
Si-32 | 4.17E+09 | 4.83E+09 | -13.6 |
Po-209 | 3.95E+09 | 3.22E+09 | 22.7 |
Rh-102m | 9.15E+07 | 1.18E+08 | -22.5 |
Md-260 | 2.75E+06 | 2.40E+06 | 14.5 |
Overall my conclusion is that the data in the present version of the table is completely OKAY. Perhaps values could be updated to the NUBASE2012 ones (especially / only) for the 8 nuclides above, but I haven't made the change. L0rents ( talk) 09:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the NUBASE2012 database I have found 33 nuclides with half-lives greater than 1 hour which are not reported in the present list. In all cases they are nuclear isomers of elements which are currently in the list. Maybe they should be incorporated in the list? Almost certainly there'll be other missing nuclides with half-lives less than 1h, but I haven't checked. Here are the ones I found, in order of increasing Z and increasing A:
Nuclide | Half-life |
---|---|
Nb-93m | 16.12 y |
Nb-95m | 3.61 d |
Tc-97m | 91 d |
Rh-101m | 4.34 d |
Rh-102 | 207 d |
Cd-113m | 13.89 y |
Cd-115 | 53.46 h |
Sn-117m | 14 d |
Sn-119m | 293.1 d |
Sn-121 | 27.03 h |
Te-121 | 19.17 d |
Te-123m | 119.2 d |
Te-125m | 57.4 d |
Xe-129m | 8.88 d |
Xe-131m | 11.84 d |
Xe-133m | 2.198 d |
Ba-133m | 38.9 h |
Ba-135m | 28.11 h |
Pm-148 | 5.368 d |
Tb-156m | 24.4 h |
Ho-166 | 26.824 h |
Lu-174m | 142 d |
Lu-177 | 6.647 d |
Hf-178m2 | 31 y |
Hf-179m2 | 25.05 d |
Re-186 | 3.7183 d |
Ir-192 | 73.827 d |
Ir-193m | 10.53 d |
Pt-193m | 4.33 d |
Pt-195m | 4.01 d |
Au-198m2 | 2.272 d |
Bi-210 | 5.012 d |
Es-254m | 39.3 h |
Noted some of these omissions too, which includes some significant isotopes for nuclear medicine (e.g. ir-192) so far added the 16 with HL over 7 days. Don't have the energy values. Marqaz ( talk) 23:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually the table above only cover missing nuclides with half lives over 1 hour. There area further 60 (I think - need verifying) missing according to Nubase2012 - include the most important medical radiotracer 99mTC _ taking the total to 989. Not sure I have the energy to enter them all unless I can find a more automated system! Will update the introduction to make it less definitive Marqaz ( talk) 08:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Nuclide | Half-life | decay mode |
---|---|---|
197mHg | 23.8 h | IT=91.4 7;EC=8.6 7 |
248mBk | 23.7 h | B-=70 5;EC=30 5;A=0.001# |
236mNp | 22.5 h | EC=50 3;B-=50 3 |
154Tb | 21.5 h | B+~100;B-<0.1 |
95Tc | 20. h | B+=100 |
194Ir | 19.3 h | B-=100 |
119Te | 16.1 h | EC=97.94 5;e+=2.06 5 |
242Am | 16. h | B-=82.7 3;EC=17.3 3 |
87mY | 13.4 h | IT=98.43 10;B+=1.57 10 |
191mOs | 13.1 h | IT=100 |
150mEu | 12.8 h | B-=89 2;B+=11 2;... |
182mRe | 12.7 h | B+=100 |
195Hg | 10.5 h | B+=100 |
183mOs | 9.9 h | B+=85 2;IT=15 2 |
196nAu | 9.6 h | IT=100 |
127Te | 9.35 h | B-=100 |
152mEu | 9.31 h | B-=72 4;B+=28 4 |
58mCo | 9.1 h | IT=100 |
137Ce | 9. h | B+=100 |
180Ta | 8.15 h | EC=86 3;B-=14 3 |
93mMo | 6.85 h | IT~100;B+=0.12 1 |
99mTc | 6.01 h | IT~100;B-=0.0037 6 |
189mOs | 5.81 h | IT=100 |
180mHf | 5.47 h | IT~100;B-=0.3 1 |
156nTb | 5.3 h | IT=?;B+=? |
99mRh | 4.7 h | B+~100;IT<0.16 |
115mIn | 4.49 h | IT=95.0 7;B-=5.0 7 |
85mKr | 4.48 h | B-=78.6 4;IT=21.4 4 |
44Sc | 3.97 h | B+=100 |
193Hg | 3.8 h | B+=100 |
176mLu | 3.66 h | B-~100;EC=0.095 16 |
202mPb | 3.54 h | IT=90.5 5;B+=9.5 5 |
90Yxm | 3.19 h | IT~100;B-=0.0018 2 |
190pIr | 3.09 h | B+=91.4 2;IT=8.6 2 |
134mCs | 2.91 h | IT=100 |
87mSr | 2.82 h | IT~100;EC=0.30 8 |
85Y | 2.68 h | B+=100 |
195Ir | 2.5 h | B-=100 |
117Cd | 2.49 h | B-=100 |
250mEs | 2.22 h | B+~100;A ? |
129mBa | 2.16 h | B+~100;IT=? |
195mOs | 2. h | B-=?;IT=? |
186mIr | 1.92 h | B+~75;IT~25 |
198mTl | 1.87 h | B+=55.9 23;IT=44.1 23 |
83Krn | 1.83 h | IT=100 |
113mIn | 1.66 h | IT=100 |
133Ce | 1.62 h | B+=100 |
152rEu | 1.6 h | IT=100 |
197mPt | 1.59 h | IT=96.7 4;B-=3.3 4 |
196mTl | 1.41 h | B+=96.2 4;IT=3.8 4 |
132mI | 1.39 h | IT=86 2;B-=14 2 |
266Db | 1.33 h | A ?;SF ?;B+ ? |
129Te | 1.16 h | B-=100 |
110mIn | 1.15 h | B+=100 |
85mSr | 1.13 h | IT=86.6 4;B+=13.4 4 |
190mIr | 1.12 h | IT=100 |
204nPb | 1.12 h | IT=100 |
89mNb | 1.1 h | B+=100 |
182Re | 1.07 h | B+=100 |
182mHf | 1.03 h | B-=54 2;IT=46 2 |
Have now added missing nuclides under one day and reformatted with extra columns etc. Marqaz ( talk) 00:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
It is sad that there are substantial gaps in our knowledge of the nuclide chart after the actinides. It is quite all right for NUBASE to fill the gaps with predicted data. It is not all right to, like we do here, put these predicted data (e.g. 269Db) on a par with actually known data, and it is definitely not all right to not update them when they are contradicted by later experiments (e.g. 266Rf). (And, because this is really unwieldy and hard to maintain, I might even cut off the list at one day instead of one hour.) Double sharp ( talk) 08:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I have removed four nuclides removed in redone table as no firm evidence for half life (269Db, 266Rf, 265Rf, 266Lr) 267Db has been left in although there appear to be two incompatible figures for its half life (1.2 or 4 hours) but both apparently reasonably accurate estimates. Please don't cut the list without discussing here. Marqaz ( talk) 00:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Under the heading "Introduction" this sentence is found: "These have been measured to be radioactive, or decay products have been identified (Te-130, Ba-130).". However, tellurium-130 has been observationally measured to be radioactive, see https://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3716, but on the other hand, as far as I have been able to find, tellurium-128 has not. Probably this is an error, so that "Te-130" should be replaced with "Te-128" in the sentence cited above. Could maybe someone who is able to be sure about this correct the sentence, or, if I am wrong, correct me? /Erik Ljungstrand (Sweden). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.158.201 ( talk) 06:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction! But on the other hand, another sentence under the heading "Introduction" reads: "If a decay has been predicted theoretically but never observed experimentally, it is given in parentheses.", and another one begins: "Such nuclides are considered to be 'stable' until a decay has been observed ...". In my opinion, this is still the case for both tellurium-128 and barium-130, which very probably are long-lived radionuclides, but, as no actual decay has ever been observed experimentally, should still be considered as observationally stable nuclides; if so, the number of those should of course be 255 (and not 253). /Erik Ljungstrand (Sweden). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.158.201 ( talk) 10:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I understand the reasoning behind, and I thought that "in some fashion" had the meaning which you explained (therefore I omitted that part of the sentence), but in my own opinion, this is not "experimentally observed" actual decay, only some (rather firm) indicia that the nuclides in question probably are long-lived radioactive, and so, in my opinion, they should still be considered observationally stable nuclides until their decays have really been experimentally observed, like e.g. the double-epsilon decay of krypton-78 seems to have done. /Erik Ljungstrand (Sweden). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.158.201 ( talk) 12:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
In this list lead-205 (n:o 291) has a comment, "CG", which stands for "Cosmogenic nuclide". However, until now I have been unable to find any actual scientific paper which reports lead-205 as an observed cosmogenic nuclide (but the LOREX neutrino project managers obviously seem to be sure that lead-205 can - and will - be found "live" in the lorandite at Allchar mine, Macedonia). Do you know about any reliable paper which reports observed "live" cosmogenic lead-205 on Earth? On the other hand, plutonium-244 seems to be firmly established as a cosmogenic nuclide on Earth, see https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6956, that is, cosmogenic in the same way as iron-60, not produced in situ on Earth, but "arrived" from space via meteorites. /Erik Ljungstrand (Sweden). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.158.201 ( talk) 12:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
What I can find in this paper (and in one of its most "interesting" references, by Freedman) does not seem to me to report any actual finding of lead-205, only speculating about that it "should be" found in the lorandite at Allchar. Maybe lead-205 has been found in lorandite, at Allchar or in some other place, but I have not been able to find this published. However, I find it very probable that lead-205 should really be a cosmogenic nuclide, but I would like to read firm evidence. /Erik Ljungstrand (Sweden). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.158.201 ( talk) 17:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure atoms that arrive on Earth via space dust are not considered cosmogenic (unless produced by cosmic ray action on the space dust). "Cosmogenic" refers AFAIK specifically to cosmic rays rather than simply "from the cosmos". Moreover, it refers to the means by which nuclides were produced, not how they ended up on Earth. 244Pu is created by the r-process, not by cosmic ray action. Magic9mushroom ( talk) 12:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the nice words. I am working (since a number of years ago, on my spare time) on a list of all naturally occuring nuclides on Earth, therefore I have had the opportunity to find some small errors in this Wikipedia list. And, under "Naturally occurring isotopes with half-lives below one hour", there is one nuclide, copernicium-285 with a half-life of 29 s, which I do not think has been confirmed as occuring in nature; if fact, I seriously doubt that it does at all. Also, at http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2007/pdf/5281.pdf you can find a reference for adding "CG" under iron-60, which like plutonium-244 is a cosmogenic nuclide "by meteorites" on Earth. /Erik Ljungstrand (Sweden). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.158.201 ( talk) 05:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I propose that List of radioactive isotopes by half-life be merged into this article. It duplicates the scope of this list, but some nuclides there (e.g. 7H) are not on this list. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree. - The 2nd Red Guy ( talk) 15:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
There is:
{{ NUBASE2020}} states:
of which ca. 260 are stable.
"... half-lives longer than one hour. This represents isotopes of the first 105 elements, except for elements 87 (francium) and 102 (nobelium)": should exclude also 104 (rutherfordium), since the known isotope with the longest half-life is 267Rf with a half-life of about 48 minutes? 129.104.241.246 ( talk) 23:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)