Talk:Isotopes of plutonium

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Isotopes of plutonium. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decay modes[edit]

I see that 236Pu is listed as undergoing double beta plus decay, but on another page Double beta decay it is not listed as being capable of doing so. I suggest removing double beta plus decay from the list of decay modes for 236Pu. 2001:8003:641A:1200:4C:DA93:35BB:AF8F (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to NUBASE2020, double decay decay of 236Pu is an energetically favorable transition. However, it has never been experimentally observed or reported in the literature. I have removed it accordingly. Complex/Rational 14:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ComplexRational: IIRC there are a lot of never-seen double-betas on the isotope articles. Isotopes of curium has them too. They might just be marked whenever they are energetically possible. Double sharp (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind removing them because it's a similar case to observationally stable nuclides. Namely, I don't think we should treat decay modes that are possible but not observed the same way as known decay modes, just as we don't treat observationally stable nuclides the same way as known primordial radionuclides. Perhaps endnotes such as "Theoretically also capable of β+β+ decay to 236U" ought to suffice. Complex/Rational 20:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ComplexRational: I agree. Double sharp (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible alpha decay of 243Pu[edit]

243Pu has only slightly higher alpha-decay energy than 244Pu (4.758 MeV vs 4.665 MeV), so its alpha-decay half-life should be at the order of 107 years, or alpha-decay probability be at the order of 10-10%. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]