Talk:Livermorium

(random heading)

(inserted for readability Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC))

Elementbox converted 11:33, 15 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 18:26, 2 July 2005).

---

"melting at around 300-400 degrees", what units? Fahrenheid or Celsius? Kelvin would be even better --BlackShift 13:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with BlackShift. Someone who knows has to address the subject --Ultrafan 13:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

---

from VfD:

Delete - more duplicative speculative sciencecruft. The article admits that evidence for this is fabricated and that its main role is in ufo conspiricy. Trollminator 20:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep DCEdwards1966 20:58, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep; The article notes that one announcement of the discovery was based on falsified data - that doesn't address the Dubna results, which are not - to the best of my knowledge - seriously challenged. It's "main role" - you're being duplicitous again, as this is the "in popular culture" section. It exists. It is chemically very significant (the "island of stability" has been a major target of nucleosynthesis work). It's an element. It's notable. Shimgray 21:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I suspect the request is trolling. Pakaran (ark a pan) 21:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Of all the noteworthy articles recently listed by Trollminator, this is a completely bogus VfD and clear abuse of the VfD process. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 21:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Much of vfd is clear abuse by the lister. Mark Richards 22:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep fvw* 23:07, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Keep. Vandal posting. --jpgordon{gab} 00:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Obvious keep, not that you need another vote at this point, but here you go. Antandrus 00:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, Though I'm not a physicist, I've heard of the physicists' speculations on these elements. RickK 06:32, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly encyclopedic. Abuse of VfD. jni 09:25, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep it. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think its Vfd abuse at all. Please assume good faith. The Steve 20:57, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks real enough to me. Jayjg 21:41, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Certainly notable. Delete the lister. --Idont Havaname 00:54, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep What's more, this VfD seems to me to be the first case I have seen for a speedy delete of a VfD. Stirling Newberry 15:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep for the same reasons mentioned by me in ununbium. --Andrew 20:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:41, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep article, delete VfD submitter. —tregoweth 18:40, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Name

Is there a proposed name, like Element 113? --myselfalso 02:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes: moscovium Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Need longer half-life for chemical properties to make sense

I've deleted the following text:

It is believed to be a brittle metal melting at around 300-400 degrees and vaporising readily.

(in Elementbox) appearance: unknown, probably silvery white or metallic gray

(in Elementbox) phase: presumably a solid

Unless someone finds an isotope with a half-life significantly longer than 61 ms, there is no hope of having enough of the stuff to have any chemical properties. Furthermore, no source is cited even for the speculations. Kingdon 13:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"historically known?"

"Ununhexium is historically known as eka-polonium."

What does "historically known" mean when talking about something only discovered over the last ten years? Wanderer57 (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The phrase seems to be speculative and not necessarily founded. "Eka-Aluminium" for Gallium, "Eka-Silicon" for Germanium, etc, could certainly be attested by citation, but it is not at all certain that "Eka-Polonium" was ever used in place of the more probable modern "Element 116" or "Ununhexium". I cowardly asked for a ^{[citation needed]}. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

@Wanderer57: There have been theoretical speculations about the element long before it was actually discovered (see link below), so this name may have been used to talk about it.

@Rursus: The name was occasionally used (e.g. by Seaborg: [1]), but apparently rather rarely. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, then let's use that ref in the article! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

pb

The article mentions several times a cross section measured in pb, but this unfamiliar unit is not wikilinked. I think this might have something to do with barns - quite possible pico-barns (10^-40 m²), but I'm not sure enough to boldly add the link. Astronaut (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(Moscovium)

With the coming naming of 116Uuh as moscovium, has anyone seen any sources on the proposed chemical symbol, or are they leaving that to IUPAC after the Cp/Cn copernicium fiasco? One of the physics discussion fora suggests that they go with Mc, as it would be read 'em cee' in Latin script for MosCovium, and as 'em ess' in Cyrillic scripts for МоСковий.130.111.163.179 (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't know; we need to wait for the official announcement from the IUPAC, which will probably be reported in Nature very soon afterward. Note that this page states "the scientists from the Dubna-Livermore collaborations are invited to propose a name for the two super-heavy elements, elements 114 and 116. The suggested names will then go through a review process before adoption by the IUPAC Council", so keep an eye on this page, under the "News" heading. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The officially submitted name is livermorium with the symbol Lv

see http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/01/9144420-fl-and-lv-headed-for-periodic-table

166.250.0.16 (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there we are. Good thing we didn't move this page prematurely; but we should still hold off moving until the official confirmation in (apparently) five months' time. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)