Talk:Unbihexium

Eka-Plutonium

Unbihexium is not eka-plutonium. Plutonium is above element 144.

The ghits for ekaplutonium appear to be about element E126 (plutonium is element 94), and several are scientific publications. By contrast, Unbihexium appears mostly in wikipedia copies and chat rooms. See: Mendeleev's predicted elements. Some mention of Ekaplutonium may be appropriate.—RJH (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Island of Stability

• looks like this was accidentally swept up in the VfD of Unbiseptium and Unbipentium. 132.205.45.110 18:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Half-Life?

I can't find any verification that this element has a predicted half-life on the order of a million years. If nobody else can find anything, please delete that. Zelmerszoetrop 19:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, delete the information about the half-life it is wrong, but not the article. Reply to David Latapie 03:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The Fermium article tells us that 255-Fm (half-life 20.07 hours) was found in the debris of H-bomb tests, but there is nothing about Unbihexium or any potential alpha-decay products with atomic number >100 being found then. Fermi himself rebutted speculation that extraterrestrials exist with the simple question "Then where are they?" (source: John L Casti, Paradigms Lost, 1989). The key fact here is: Ubh, Like Extraterrestrial Life, Has Not Been Found, On Earth Or Elsewhere. In this spirit, the Californium article states that this terrestrially well-attested element (898-year half-life for 251-Cf) has been observed in supernova spectra. There is no such claim for Ubh. These facts would make the best half-life estimates for Ubh most optimistically below 900 years and most likely considerably less than 20 hours. Dajwilkinson 02:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I agree there. If Ubh exists and is synthesized in stars, its synthesis would presumably be extremely rare, even if it had a very long half-life, making its presence in spectra hard to find, even if we knew what to look for. And would we even know how to find it in spectra, given that we haven't observed it? At any rate, its presumed non-existence on Earth only sets an upper limit in the tens of millions of years. XinaNicole (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible evidence

There is a link to a pdf from the site linked to at the bottom of the Ubh page, containing some so-called possible evidence for Ubh's existence. However, not having a post-graduate degree of any kind, I can't get much more out of it. sjl 16:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea appears to be that certain stones composed of biotite show evidence that a crystal of, say, a Ubh compound sat at their centre and the Ubh decayed, leaving definite signals of its decay energy in the form of a detectable ring (sphere?) of a certain radius - presumably an "average" of where its decay products ended up - from which decay energy can be calculated. The evidence is not conclusive and the article linked to says that other isotopes explain the phenomenon.

Believe me, I would love to see positive evidence of Ubh. We have never studied elements in the periodic table where the g orbitals are being filled. Putting on my best Devil's Advocate hat, I would conjecture the following: 310-Ubh has a half-life that "we would like" but its decay products are so "hot" radioactively that its critical mass is ridiculously small (micrograms or less), because it ejects so many neutrons and odd nuclei in its own decay and the immediate chain below it that even if they fail to smash the rest of the Ubh they cloud the picture. At this level, spotting something that hardly decays in the lifespan of a typical experiment (due to its million-odd-year half-life) is impossible against a noisy background. This way, maybe we can all have what we really want! Meanwhile, I want to hear of spectral lines in supernovae and other high-energy cosmic phenomena matching nothing we know and I would ask for contributions from those observing these events. They might show Ubh, and we may have a fighting chance of duplicating the results on Earth with existing equipment. Spectroscopy can detect very small quantities of material. And, if we can know, we must know!

Looking for a name for something so annoying, "Tantalum" has been taken. "Damoclesium" might be appropriate as a name if it turns up - concentrating Ubh to look for it activates a natural mechanism to destroy it. Dajwilkinson (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What happens when neutrons hit infissile uranium? It becomes neptunium or plutonium, which stick around for days, years, or aions. -lysdexia 22:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.202.125 (talk)

²³⁹U and ²³⁷U have half-lives of days or thereabouts as they decay to the 24,100-year ²³⁹Pu and 2-million-year or so ²³⁷Np, both fissile nuclei though they more usually alpha-decay. They are long-lived by our standards but not compared to the age of the Earth, hence we do not find them in appreciable quantities in nature. Fermi's point still stands on the matter of such things as Bob Lazar's claim for a really long-lived element 115: if it existed, we would have found it by now. Dajwilkinson (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

would who ever it is who keeps vandalizing pages to remove the extend periodic table for heavy elements

Please stop. Stirling Newberry 15:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry ._.

Name

I will propose a name Kritonium (Kt) after kriton and kryptonite. Cosmium 21:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

IUPAC has the say in what it's called. Since Unbihexium will take a...while...to synthesize, don't hold your breath on making a Kritonium redirect. Sorry. 72.178.12.19 (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Cosmium was indefinitely blocked years ago for lots of disruptive editing along the lines of that comment. DMacks (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what I get for ignoring timestamps. 72.178.12.19 (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Coping?

http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Unbihexium is the website about Unbihexium. I found that most of the information in this article came directly from this website, in which word for ward was copied and pasted from the website to this article. 96.255.181.76 (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read the bottom line at the website you mention, which says "The original article is from Wikipedia.". Materialscientist (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Target-projectile table problems

The target-projectile table is totally screwed up. Am + Zn would produce 125 (95 + 30) not 126, Cm + Ni 124 (96 + 28), Bk + Ni 125 (97 + 28), Cf + Co 125 (98 + 27), Es + Fe 125 (99 + 26), Fm + Mn 125 (100 + 25), Md + Ti 123 (101 + 22), & Db + Ca 125 (105 + 20). Those aren't the most neutron-rich isotopes either (for example, Ni-64 is stable and has been used as a projectile). 69.72.27.117 (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

After these nuclear reactions, it would undergoe beta decay and form element 126. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 20:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The isotopes that would be produced are too neutron-deficient to beta decay; if they didn't decay by alpha emission or SF first they would decay by electron capture, which would LOWER the atomic number. 69.72.27.232 (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No element past the actinides has been observed to beta decay, in any case. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No corresponding asterisk

In the chemical balance, there is an asterisk after Ubh with apparently no corresponding note, it is driving me insane... Triindiglo 04:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triindiglo (talk • contribs)

Usually it means that species is in excited state. Materialscientist (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)