Talk:Isotopes of osmium

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isotopes of osmium. 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/20080923135135/http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/amdc/nubase/Nubase2003.pdf to http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/amdc/nubase/Nubase2003.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923135135/http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/amdc/nubase/Nubase2003.pdf to http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/amdc/nubase/Nubase2003.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Half-life of ¹⁸⁴Os may still in dispute

The article Cook et al. (2014) questions the 1.12(23)×10¹³ years half-life of ¹⁸⁴Os in Peters et al. (2014), the latter being the only up-to-now article to give this value. Instead, it proposes a half-life of 2.20(61)×10¹³ years (the value is still tentative and depends heavily on the measurement whose precision is yet a problem to be solved). A value of (3.38±2.13)×10¹³ years was proposed later in Cook et al. (2018). Please note that NUBASE2020 uses the 1.12(23)×10¹³ years value by citing Peters et al. (2014) (one can see this by entering 2014Pe22 in [1]). Personally I found the value (3.38±2.13)×10¹³ years more reliable despite its large uncertainty. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm in the process of updating to NUBASE2020; this is usually an average or the most accurate value. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Do not modify your own comments after they have been replied to. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Possible alpha decay of ¹⁸⁷Os

According to this article, ¹⁸⁷Os may have reasonable alpha decay half-life to have its decay observed and measured. ¹⁴⁹Sm may be the only observationally stable nuclide to share this property (see here; 10²⁰ years for ¹⁷⁶Hf and 10²² years for ¹⁴⁵Nd and ¹⁷⁷Hf may also have some chance but I won't bet it). It's hard to believe that their alpha decays have not been observed: both of the theoretical half-lives are shorter than the half-life of ²⁰⁹Bi (and perhaps also ¹⁵¹Eu). 2A04:CEC0:C01E:FC3C:249D:DDD3:9844:468E (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

For the ²⁰⁹Bi experiment, the low-temperature scintillating bolometers were made out of a Bi compound (Bi₄Ge₃O₁₂), so there was no need to dope some other compound with Bi (as there was a need to do doping with ¹⁴⁸Sm to detect its alpha). Maybe this is one reason? Double sharp (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Cristiano Toàn (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC) Osmium is really rare element because it is siderophile, most osmium on the earth is concentrated in mantle or core but samarium is not

Half life of ¹⁶⁰Os

The currently cited source says 97(+97−32) μs but https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.072502 ("Discovery of New Isotopes 160Os and 156W: Revealing Enhanced Stability of the N=82 Shell Closure on the Neutron-Deficient Side", Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 072502) says 201(+58−37) μs. These ranges do overlap, so perhaps more experimental data over time will resolve it? I guess no edit to the article is needed at this time, but I thought it might be worth dropping this citation on the talk page just in case. Kingdon (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)