This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the
chemical elements and their
isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the
project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
"Enduring excited state" and "daughter decay products"
Hi Sbharris,
in relation to your recent edit, I'd like to request clarification on a couple of points:
What is your concern with the phrase "enduring excited state"? To my mind, it is enduring by the standards of excited states, not just by the standards of gamma decay. Or you could think about it as enduring by the standards of nuclear isomers, which is really the only way you get gamma decay anyway. I like to minimize the complexity of the introductory sentence of major sections, so I'd like to reduce the number of words here if we can.
Why is "daughter decay product(s)" a better term than "daughter elements"? I'm very used to hearing the latter, but this is my first encounter with the former.
The article states, "Technetium-99m was discovered as a product of cyclotron bombardment of molybdenum." However, it doesn't state what the molybdenum was bombarded with. Electrons, maybe? Anyone know how to find out for sure? Thanks.
Art SmartChart/
Heart16:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
My guess is since molybdenum's atomic number is 42 and technetium's is 43, it must be by positron bombardment, turning a neutron into a proton. That would keep the atomic weight 99, but increase the atomic number by 1. Does that make sense? Thanks again.
Art SmartChart/
Heart16:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply