Talk:Isotopes of beryllium: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:20, 3 December 2023

Elements: Isotopes List‑class Low‑importance

	Chemistry portal 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
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Isotope Taskforce.

Template:Vital article

⁸Be half life measure

decay width = 5.57 (25) eV per http://www-nds.iaea.org/relnsd/NdsEnsdf/showensdfdata.jsp?NucNo=8&NucID=BE Using standard decay width to time conversion ħ/Γ = half-life in s and applying error range to the same 1.18 (5) x 10^-16s

So I would say that both values are incorrect as listed currently on the Table for this isotope. 24.8.144.79 (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

⁸Be: Shouldn't alpha decay to helium-4 (read: two helium-4 nuclei) be considered fission?

Given that an alpha particle happens to be a helium-4 nucleus in the first place, why is alpha decay ***to*** helium-4 not noted as fission if the daughter nuclei are identical? It would make more sense to note it that way in my opinion (and to that of the average reader) to denote it as such. Thank you. 2602:306:BCA6:AC60:28F0:1D2E:C6A4:796D (talk) 07:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Positron emission

Given that the isotope EO4Be9 is the isotope that supplies the positrons for the Fermi positron acceleration experiments, why isn't there a description of how this is accomplished? Is that due to the decay of a proton or a neutron? And how can a point source contain a +1 electrostatic charge?WFPM (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about and can see no way that Be-9, our normal Be isotope, could supply positrons. Do you have a link? As for how a point source can be charged it's no harder for a positron than an electron. Ultimately it's still a mystery although QED helps explain what happens to space at such high field strengths very near the point charge. Ultimately the vacuum breaks down into virtual particles that prevent infinite field strengths. S B H arris 08:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the May 1985 National Geographic article about the "Worlds within the Atom", where the element Beryllium is described as the source the "manufactured antiprotons" needed for the proton-antiproton collision experiments. And these "antiprotons would thus be negative unit charged particles with the same mass as the proton. I guess I'm wrong about the production of a positron, because the article says antiproton. But somehow, the interacting positive proton is causing the presumably EO4Be9 atom to emit a negative unit charged particle. And the question is what it would be after it did that? It's a good article, but I don't agree with its drawing portrayal of the nucleus of the EE6c12 Atomic nucleus.WFPM (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC) PS In the Wiki antiproton article, it now says they're using a 29In (Indium) rod as a target. So I guess you have to keep close tabs on these things.WFPM (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At Fermilab now they use a target of Inconel, an iron/nickel/chromium superalloy steel that can withstand sudden thermal shock stresses from proton beam heating. [1] Antiprotons are then focused with a lithium lens, basically a cylinder of lithium with a current running down it. Lithium because it is the least dense electric current conductor, thus minimizing scattering and annihiliation loss as the antiprotons travel through it. It's a fascinating problem in engineering physics, as is anything to do with accelerators. But I see no role for beryllium except its usual one to keep other metals from oxidizing while itself serving as a low density window for various radiations. S B H arris 02:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but that's what the article said. And I'm studying "The hunting of the Quark" By Michael Riordan, which details the history of SLAC and trying to understand how both point particles and quark containing composite particles can wind up with a net unit electric charge. Since it would have to be for different reasons, it sounds like quite a coincidence.WFPM (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beryllium-17?

Could you tell us where you found that there is a possible ¹⁷Be? There is no site where it is mentionned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.92.224.178 (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isotopes of beryllium. 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:

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) 14:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beryllium-6

Beryllium-6 is an intermediate in the proton proton chain. 2 He-3 > Be-6 > He-4 + 2 H-1 . 2603:6000:8740:54B1:C941:7ADA:D88:9366 (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beryllium-8 natural occurrence

Shouldn't Beryllium-8 be listed as extinct, rather than synthetic? It's in helium fusing stars. 174.103.211.189 (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat tricky to define. I don't believe ⁸Be can be considered extinct because it is constantly being created and destroyed in stellar cores (existing in secular equilibrium), yet due to its extremely short half-life, it does not exist on Earth outside of laboratories and has never been primordial (as is the case with extinct nuclides) anywhere. The infobox in beryllium-8 just states "0 natural abundance" with a footnote; for {{Infobox beryllium isotopes}}, it might be best to leave it as "synthetic" but with a similar footnote. ^Complex/_Rational 19:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could argue that beryllium-8 is the most important isotope of beryllium (along with beryllium-6 in the proton-proton chain). Who changed it from "extinct " to "synthetic " ? Besides, doesn't it occur naturally in the sun (stars above around 0.5 solar masses fuse helium) ? 174.103.211.189 (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be "intermediate " for nuclei like this. 174.103.211.189 (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another classification could potentially be beneficial, but "natural abundance" generally refers to abundance on Earth, now. Otherwise, we'd have to consistently list every nuclide found in stars or the interstellar medium that doesn't occur on Earth (e.g., ¹⁷F in the CNO II cycle; ⁵²Fe in the alpha ladder; various isotopes potentially observed in Przybylski's Star), for which inclusion criteria are not quite as clear. ^Complex/_Rational 23:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, wouldn't we have to call many more nuclides extinct, considering the r-process path? Double sharp (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 05:20, 3 December 2023 edit Double sharp (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers 101,937 edits →Beryllium-8 natural occurrence ← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:20, 3 December 2023 edit undo Double sharp (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers 101,937 edits →Beryllium-8 natural occurrence Next edit →
Line 59:		Line 59:
	::::Another classification could potentially be beneficial, but "natural abundance" generally refers to abundance ''on Earth, now''. Otherwise, we'd have to consistently list every nuclide found in stars or the interstellar medium that doesn't occur on Earth (e.g., <sup>17</sup>F in the CNO II cycle; <sup>52</sup>Fe in the alpha ladder; various isotopes potentially observed in [[Przybylski's Star]]), for which inclusion criteria are not quite as clear. <sup>[[User:ComplexRational\|'''<span style="color:#0039a6">Complex</span>''']]</sup>/<sub>[[User talk:ComplexRational\|'''<span style="color:#000000">Rational</span>''']]</sub> 23:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)		::::Another classification could potentially be beneficial, but "natural abundance" generally refers to abundance ''on Earth, now''. Otherwise, we'd have to consistently list every nuclide found in stars or the interstellar medium that doesn't occur on Earth (e.g., <sup>17</sup>F in the CNO II cycle; <sup>52</sup>Fe in the alpha ladder; various isotopes potentially observed in [[Przybylski's Star]]), for which inclusion criteria are not quite as clear. <sup>[[User:ComplexRational\|'''<span style="color:#0039a6">Complex</span>''']]</sup>/<sub>[[User talk:ComplexRational\|'''<span style="color:#000000">Rational</span>''']]</sub> 23:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

	:By that logic, wouldn't we have to call many more nuclides extinct, considering the ''r''-process path? [[User:Double sharp\|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp\|talk]]) 05:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)		:By that logic, wouldn't we have to call many more nuclides extinct, considering the r-process path? [[User:Double sharp\|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp\|talk]]) 05:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)