Jump to content

Talk:Rutherfordium/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

reference

Is there no better reference site than the one given? That one is pretty weak, and hard to navigate. Theonlyedge 23:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)actually i think there is to this page but this is alright so just us ethis one and if you find a different one just use that one oaky!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

IPA?

The page gives /ˌjuːnɪlˈkwɒdiəm/ for unnilquadium. Since a vowel followed by a double consonant is almost always short, shouldn't it be /ʌ/? 91.105.6.176 14:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know IPA well enough to translate, but there's a .wav at [1] and also [2] (I personally have my doubts that that word is really spoken, as opposed to written, very much, but who am I to argue with Merriam-Webster?). Kingdon 21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

speculative chemical/physical properties

I've deleted the following:

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

Although with a half-life of 13 hours, it isn't completely out of the question that there might be some limited data on physical/chemical properties, no source is cited for the speculation. Kingdon 21:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I have found a source for this claim - I will add this info back and cite the source, and see whether it stays. leevclarke (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reference for "Phase:solid"? If yes, I would like to add this fact to the periodic table.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion !?

It is disconcerting to read the first group of nucleosynthesis reactions described as "cold fusion" without comment, both here and in articles for the next few elements. Unfortunately, many readers now associate this term with the Fleischmann-Pons fiasco. I can see that the reactions given here are completely different, so I presume the term is used in a different sense here. However that sense is not explained in the articles on cold fusion or nuclear fusion; the only clue I could find is on the cold fusion (disambiguation) page where the third meaning is given as "Nuclear fusion at high energies, but only barely sufficient for fusion, used in the production of transuranium elements." Is this what is meant in this article?

To avoid confusion, I suggest providing a brief explanation of the term where it is first used in this article, and perhaps a note to explain that this is not the infamous Fleischmann-Pons process.

Dirac66 (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above, we might also point out that the nucleosynthesis of heavy elements is endothermic, so that there is no question of energy production as for D-D fusion. Dirac66 (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Rutherfordium/Archive 1/GA1

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rutherfordium/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: one found and fixed.[3] Jezhotwells (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Improved experimental techniques allowed to characterize some chemical properties of rutherfordium, ... This doesn't make sense, poor grammar.
    that increased the probability of these products to survive fission. Poor grammar.
    they only require the emission of only one or two neutrons. redundant "only"
    Some of isotopes with an atomic mass up to 263 "Some of"?
    a few alpha decay events were observed since 2004 that terminated Poor phrasing.
    Some experimental evidence has been obtained in 2004 for an even heavier isotope Better to use "was", consistency in tense.
    However, the last step in this chain is not determined for sure. Colloquial, not encyclopaedic.
    It is unclear weather these events were due to direct spontaneous fission of 268Db, or instead, it produced electron capture events with a similar long half-times Very poor.
    OK, take this away and get it copy-edited by someone with a command of good plain English.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Whereas most of the isotopes of rutherfordium can be synthesized directly this way, some of the heavier ones have only been observed as decay products of elements with higher atomic numbers I think this statement needs citing.
    Sources appear reliable.
    However the article needs to explain who made various observations, rather than just relying on cites.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    OK, the prose is nowhere near "reasonably well-written". Please get it copy-edited and then take to peer review before renominating. Fail GA nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Wohoo! Long live GAs with only 5kb of text! They are so easy to write, because they don't really have anything in them. Nergaal (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

References

  • Türlera, A. (1998). "Evidence for relativistic effects in the chemistry of element 104". Journal of Alloys and Compounds. 271–273: 287–291. doi:10.1016/S0925-8388(98)00072-3. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |volumes= ignored (help)
  • E. Strub, J. V. Kratz, A. Kronenberg, A. Nähler, P. Thörle, S. Zauner, W. Brüchle, E. Jäger, M. Schädel, B. Schausten, E. Schimpf, Li Zongwei, U. Kirbach, D. Schumann, D. Jost, A. Türler, M. Asai, Y. Nagame, M. Sakama, K. Tsukada, H. W. Gäggeler and J. P. Glatz (1998). "Fluoride complexation of rutherfordium (Rf, element 104)". Radiochim. Acta. 88 (5_2000): 265. doi:10.1524/ract.2000.88.5.265. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |volumes= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)--Stone (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.77.034603
  • Haba, Hiromitsu; Tsukada, Kazuaki; Asai, Masato; Toyoshima, Atsushi; Akiyama, Kazuhiko; Nishinaka, Ichiro; Hirata, Masaru; Yaita, Tsuyoshi; Ichikawa, Shin-Ichi (2004). "Fluoride Complexation of Element 104, Rutherfordium". Journal of the American Chemical Society. 126 (16): 5219–24. doi:10.1021/ja031824u. PMID 15099106.

--Stone (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Half life

Contradiction of rutherfordium "with a half-life of 1.3 hours" (located on "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununoctium" Where as the page for rutherfordium states it has a half-life of 13 hours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.89.18.171 (talk • contribs) .

These half-lives presumably refer to different isotopes. Femto 11:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
There are no isotopes of Rf that have half-life 1.3 unit, except when using the exotic unit dekahours. As of june 2008. Said: Rursus ☻ 15:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
But why there still is this 1.3 hours? Copy from isiotopes page:
"265Rf 104 161 265.11670(46)# 13 h 3/2+#"
Here it has 13 hour half-life... RSXLV (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Probably and old typo. Corrected per this. Materialscientist (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Layperson copy edit

Nergaal, as per your request I've looked over this page. Frankly, most of the information here was too technical for me, a biologist with a modest background in chemistry. I tried to rewrite the intro to make it a little more approachable, and I apologize if I garbled any science in the process. The "who found it first" section seemed a bit NPOV. IUPAC seems to say there's no cut and dried winner, wouldn't they be the final authority? The Nucleosynthesis and isotopes sections are where my eyes really glazed over. I see there's an isotopes of rutherfordium page, perhaps more of the details could be left to there? The chemical properties section was, again, quite technical. There seemed to me to be contradictory statements on whether Rf could be considered a "typical" Group 4 element.

I'm not going to remove the copy-edit tag since I don't feel competent enough on the subject to be sure whether everything is okay. I hope that what changes I did make improved the text without messing anything up too badly. Tdslk (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this thing is that far away

Have seen more technical articles on the math side. We can get this thing to have a decent lead. front-load the easier to understand stuff and condense some reactions and it will be there. Unfortunately I don't have immediate time to work on it. I really don't think it is that far away. Second GAN was over-harsh.TCO (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rutherfordium/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations:none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    This is massively improved since my last review. Prose good and complies sufficiently with MoS.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    References appear good, Rs and I assume GF for those which I cannot access.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Thorough without unnecessary detail.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Licensed, tagged and captioned.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Excellent, I have no hesitation in listing this as a GA. congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


Chemistry


Image

Nergaal (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Isotopes

RSC chemical data reference

The link now redirects to a different page which doesn't give the speculations listed in the infobox. Double sharp (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Electron configuration

The article states that the electron configuration of Rf is 5f14 6d2 7s2. But according to Glenn T. Seabog and Walter D. Loveland. The Search for New Elements from New Chemistry, ed. Nina Hall, the electrons in Rf have relativistic orbital velocities (they rise with the atomic number), and therefore relativistic quantum mechanics must be used instead of non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Solving the Dirac equation (instead of the Shroedinger equation) yields different atomic orbitals due to the relativistic spin-orbit splitting effect. As a result, the Rf's preferred electron configuration has 6d 7p instead of 6d2 as one would have expected from non-relativistic considerations. Leokor (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Early calculations said that, but later ones gave the 6d27s2 configuration, and the observed chemistry of Rf follows this prediction. Double sharp (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 10:18, 15 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 13:54, 12 March 2005).

Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Rutherfordium.

Data for the table were obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but were reformatted and converted into SI units.

Talk

Contradiction of rutherfordium "with a half-life of 1.3 hours" (located on "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununoctium" Where as the page for rutherfordium states it has a half-life of 13 hours.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rutherfordium/Archive_1&oldid=987992208"