Talk:Unbihexium/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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 ._. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.182.123 (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2013 (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)

Also The graph shown by the island of stabilty section does not show 332Ubh. It only shows up to 190 netrons while 332Ubh has 206 netrons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.194.87.35 (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"Silence is Golden" , Lou Antonelli

There should be a reference to the story "Silence is Golden" Lou Antonelli. Other pages, such as Atlantis, have popular culture sections. Numerous other pages have "In fiction" or "In popular culture" sections.

• http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.php?id=1959
• http://www.revolutionsf.com/fiction/silence/01.html

174.22.13.7 (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

...and would there be any difference if it mentioned element 164 (say) rather than element 126? If not, then it doesn't really have special relevance to the element? Double sharp (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2013 (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)

Ubh is unlikely to be synthesized in supernovae (see "Newlands revisited", Found. Chem. 2010, 12: 85-93). Perhaps in the destruction of neutron stars by collision? This seems a highly unlikely event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.135 (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Copying?

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)

btw, I just edited the title cuz it said coping. thx --116.86.239.225 (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

also, i ended up at http://multilingualarchive.com/ when i tried going to that site. :/