Jump to content

Talk:Isotopes of barium: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 26: Line 26:
== Possible alpha decay of <sup>140</sup>Ba ==
== Possible alpha decay of <sup>140</sup>Ba ==


The following table is made according to the trend shown in [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.11458.pdf].
The following table is made according to the trend shown in [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.11458.pdf] as well as the [[Geiger-Nuttall law]].
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
|-
|-
Line 35: Line 35:
| 28 || <sup>140</sup>Ba || 0.74 || 10<sup>42</sup> yr
| 28 || <sup>140</sup>Ba || 0.74 || 10<sup>42</sup> yr
|-
|-
| 29 || <sup>145</sup>Ce || 0.20 || 10<sup>156</sup> yr
| 29 || <sup>145</sup>Ce || 0.20 || 10<sup>118</sup> yr
|-
|-
| 30 || <sup>150</sup>Nd || colspan="2" | Alpha stable
| 30 || <sup>150</sup>Nd || colspan="2" | Alpha stable

Revision as of 07:28, 25 January 2024

WikiProject iconElements: Isotopes List‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Isotope Taskforce.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isotopes of barium. 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]

Barium 112?

The article on isotopes of xenon briefly mentions barium-112 as the "heaviest nuclide with equal numbers of protons and neutrons". It isn't in the Ba article; maybe it was discovered recently, or maybe it isn't confirmed and the article on isotopes of Xe needs fixing. Can someone fix this? It's beyond my level of expertise. Oaklandguy (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found a reference on it, but it requires subscription to access: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-70609-0_115. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 23:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible alpha decay of 140Ba

The following table is made according to the trend shown in [1] as well as the Geiger-Nuttall law.

n 5n2nX Alpha decay energy (MeV) Possible order of theoretical alpha decay half-life
27 135Xe Alpha stable
28 140Ba 0.74 1042 yr
29 145Ce 0.20 10118 yr
30 150Nd Alpha stable
31 155Sm Alpha stable
32 160Gd Alpha stable
33 165Dy Alpha stable
34 170Er 0.05 10408 yr
35 175Yb 0.60 1084 yr
36 180Hf 1.29 1045 yr
37 185W 1.59 1046 yr
38 190Os 1.38 1047 yr
39 195Pt 1.19 1064 yr
40 200Hg 0.72 1095 yr
41 205Pb 1.47 1051 yr
2A04:CEC0:1011:B1F1:C5E3:F416:5CD7:1B03 (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]