Talk:Hassium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Hassium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
WikiProject Elements (Rated A-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
A-Class article A  This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
Version 0.5
Peer review This Natsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. Elementbox converted 10:43, 15 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 20:19, 3 July 2005).

Huh?[edit]

"Hassium-270, a doubly magic isotope"

That has 108 protons and 162 neutrons. The magic numbers on the linked page are 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, 126. 108 and 162 are not in the list. Ken Arromdee 08:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, I was just about to say something similar, but you beat me to it. Another article on Wikipedia leads me to the same conclusion. --DachannienTalkContrib 08:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, i've just completed a course on applications of radioactive ion beams. Magic numbers aren't fixed when you're approaching the Neutron-rich & Proton-rich drip lines (theoretical limit of how many neutrons you can squeeze in a atom with fixed number of proton, and vice-versa). The classic magic numbers we see are based on stable elements and extrapolated for them. Things get really strange once you get near the drip lines: some magic numbers vanishes, new ones appear. Since I don't have my notes in front of me, I'm guessing this is what happening with Hassium-270. 154.20.57.153 04:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The magic numbers Z=108 and N=162 are predicted by calculations considering also higher orders of deformation and have been observed in recent Hs-experiments (e.g. 26Mg+248Cm) due to the relatively low alpha energy of 270Hs, compared with other Hassium isotopes (Z=108) and N=162 isotones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.187.9.241 (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

chemical and physical properties[edit]

I've deleted the following text, which does not cite a source. If we really want to print speculation, we at least need a source for why this speculation might make sense.

It is predicted that hassium will be the densest element yet known, with a density exceeding two and a half times that of lead. This assumes that a measurable quantity of the element can be made, which is not possible at this time.

Kingdon 04:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted another edit about the density, which also does not a cite a source. Specifically, the text "estimated 41 g/cm³" in the elementbox and "Hassium is probably the densest element known, with an estimated density of 41 g/cm³." in the article (the latter was also poorly placed - next to the ref tag for the "Chemistry of Hassium" paper, although I saw no mention of density in that paper). If there is a reason to include this in the article, we need a source for the information. See WP:ATT for example. Kingdon 00:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Another question: Are there also predictions about the existence of an octafluoride HsF8? Its lighter homologue Osmium octafluoride is unknown until now, but the Wikipedia article about Meitnerium cites the possible existence of MtF9 (although very carefully), which would be isoelectronic with HsF8. So the existence of HsF8 is at least imaginable... --79.243.227.139 (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not impossible. The only trouble is that it's cooler for scientists to publish papers speculating about the unknown oxidation state +9 than the known oxidation state +8, and so you see speculation about Mt(IX) but not Hs(VIII)! But spin-orbit coupling effects may destabilize it, just like it does for MtF9 and [MtO4]+ (which is why I added so many caveats as they may or may not be actually feasible or possible), so we might not have HsF8. Additionally the Hs atom is predicted to be even smaller than the Os atom thanks to the actinide contraction, so we may not be able to fit eight F atoms around it (it's at least possible for Os, even though it's not known): similarly for MtF9. Double sharp (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

277Hs[edit]

An anon. added this isotope, unref'd, w a half life of 12m. Just want to be sure it's not vandalism. kwami (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not "un"ref'd. Who unrefd and where?! Why don't you do the proper research before you ignorantly obstruct these pages? -lysdexia 07:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.4.199 (talk)
There was no reference. I found one for 16.5 min. I don't have time to follow up every anonymous edit tweaking numbers to see if it's vandalism, which is why I added a comment here rather than simply reverting. kwami (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The ref is in Wikipedia's data page for isotopes, and its talk page. There's also Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.4.199 (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
@kwami: Could you add the reference for 16.5 min you mention? In the article, there is no reference given for it, except a "see ununquadium" - and that article does not mention the isotope in question. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, is it http://www.springerlink.com/content/f80mt423204570p8/fulltext.pdf ? Though they don't seem to mention this value as a half-life, only as the decay time for a single nucleus. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Since the 16.5 min figure is for a single event, the estimated half-life for 277Hs would be 16.5 ln 2 ≈ 11.4 min, naturally with large error bars. However, it seems that this data was actually for a metastable isomer, and not the ground state (which has been listed as having a half-life of 2 s). Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Right. But Isotopes of hassium considers this isomer unconfirmed and does not even list it in its table (instead another shorter-lived isomer is given). I think we should do the same here and remove it at least from the infobox and the equally prominent lead. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hassium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gilderien (talk · contribs) 01:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


The article on first reading is a well-written and relatively understandable. It may be difficult to understand for a reader with no previous knowledge of nuclear synthesis or transition chemistry but this is probably inevitable for an article of this type. More images would be useful, but all the current ones are either free or with an acceptable fair use rationale. There appears to be no major problems, and certainly not any quick-fail criteria, however there were one or two problems:

  • I added another picture. I don't think there are many other suitable places, though. Double sharp (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 23 is dead.
  • Reference 27 is not sufficient in the case of the link being lost.
  • The majority of the Natural Occurence paragraph is speculation and thus needs to be cited to a reliable scientific source.
    • Almost all of it (from "More recently, it was hypothesized..." to "...theoretically possible, but highly unlikely") is referenced by reference 40 (a journal article). Is the way I formatted it OK? Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Probably yes, but I added the reference to other sentences that appeared to be speculation and thus needed to be sourced.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Almost none of what it referenced to Nature's Building Blocks appears in my copy, however it is the 2002 edition and so the Hassium section presumably has been updated? Does it now have its own section and is not merely covered with the rest of the transfermium elements?
    • Yes, it does. Now every element up to element 127 has its own section in Nature's Building Blocks. Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • One citation is not sufficient for the 270Hs: prospects for a deformed doubly magic nucleus paragraph - it may support the whole section, but as the full text is not freely available this must be specified.

--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)




  • As per the previous comment, the last two paragraphs on gas phase chemistry require some more citations, as does the physical and atomic paragraph, particularly regarding the claim that it is twice as dense as the densest element.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:



Congratulations, we have a new Good Article. --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Feedback[edit]

I'd eliminate the subheaders in the History - they chop it up too much. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Talk:Hassium/R8R review. In construction.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sergenium[edit]

I just stumbled upon a text that said the molybdenite where sergenium was claimed to be found came from the peninsula of Çeleken, in Turkmenistan. A quick check shows there are molybdenite mines there. Still (former Soviet) Central Asia, not much changes, have no "official" ref to support my claim; even though as for me, I can easily imagine a Westerner confusing Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan (although maybe it's because of Hollywood movies, whose producers have very serious geography problems if it's east from Germany).

Just sayin'.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Also see http://edu.glavsprav.ru/info/hs/ (Google Translate it). Request http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01666716 at ref desk if interested. And see http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-ex/0210039.pdf (supports Kazakhstan)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Kulakov, V. M. (1970). "Has element 108 been discovered?". Soviet Atomic Energy 29 (5): 1166. doi:10.1007/BF01666716.  should be included and the Cherdyntsev, V.V.; Mikhailov, V.F. (1963). "THE PRIMORDIAL TRANSURANIUM ISOTOPE IN NATURE". Geokhimiya (U.S.S.R.) 1: 3–14. 
Thanks! Will read it and improve the article with it. (well, when I have time) Double sharp (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, 2 vs. 1 on Kazakhstan, the 1 is not a published book or journal article; I'll use Kazakhstan for now, though what you say is very believeable... Double sharp (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)