Talk:Isotopes of neodymium
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Isotopes of neodymium. 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: 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) 14:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Problem
[edit]Hi everyone!
Look, 27.2% (142Nd) + 12.2% (143Nd) + 23.8% (144Nd) + 8.3% (145Nd) + 17.2% (146Nd) + 5.8% (148Nd) + 5.6% (150Nd) =100.10% (but not exactly 100%)
In your case the Standard atomic weight will be 144.384!
Please find and correct mistake!-Surprizi (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- I checked and only from 142Nd we can take out 0.10% to receive Standard atomic weight — 144.242. So in my opinion 142Nd percentage should be 27.1% not 27.2%.-Surprizi (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Probably there's a rounding error in the table or the source. I will take a look later. ComplexRational (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
| 142Nd | 60 | 82 | 141.9077233 | 27.1% | 38.45699301 |
| 143Nd | 60 | 83 | 142.9098143 | 12.2% | 17.43499734 |
| 144Nd | 60 | 84 | 143.9100873 | 23.8% | 34.25060078 |
| 145Nd | 60 | 85 | 144.9125736 | 8.3% | 12.02774361 |
| 146Nd | 60 | 86 | 145.9131169 | 17.2% | 25.09705611 |
| 148Nd | 60 | 88 | 147.9168930 | 5.8% | 8.579179794 |
| 150Nd | 60 | 90 | 149.9208910 | 5.6% | 8.395569896 |
| Ar, stand.(Nd) | 100% | 144.242141 |
This is my calculations with corrections from 27.2% to 27.1%.-Surprizi (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Standard atomic weight is given in {{CIAAW2017}}[1]. In fact, this source is already present in the article. -DePiep (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's because 142Nd is 27.152(40)% which was rounded to 27.2%. Double sharp (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Standard atomic weights of 14 chemical elements revised". CIAAW. 2018-06-05.
Possible α decay of several isotopes of neodymium
[edit]According to [1], 143Nd (N = 83), 145Nd (N = 85) and 146Nd (N = 86) should respectively have an α decay half-life at the order of 1088 years, 1022 years and 1034 years. Given the trend, 147Nd (N = 87) may have an alpha decay partial half-life at the order of 1052 years. 148Nd (N = 88) should have an α decay half-life at the order of 1070 years. Note that alpha decay of 146Nd would be non-ignorable (having significant branching ratio) compared to the theoretical half-life of double beta decay at the order of either 1028 years given in [2], [3] or 1033 years given in [4].
139Nd (N = 79) and 149Nd (N = 89) have respectively an alpha decay energy of 0.21 MeV and 0.29 MeV, which is quite low, so alpha decay may be possible but with a partial half-life long beyond imagination. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC) and Cristiano Toàn (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Note that 142Nd is much too stable
[edit]It is 1.6698 MeV lighter than the average mass of 138Ce and 146Sm. 14.52.231.91 (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Neodymium-143
[edit]According to here, 143Nd has indeed a very long half-life. Although 155Gd and 162Dy have longer alpha decay half-life among those nuclides stable to beta decay and double beta decay, perhaps their cluster decay half-lives are shorter (see here). For 143Nd, its cluster decay should be negligable compared to alpha decay. 14.52.231.91 (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)