Talk:Isotopes of lawrencium

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isotopes of lawrencium. 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: 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) 14:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Could ²⁶⁷
Lr be more stable or at least having a comparable t_1⁄2 to ²⁶⁶
Lr?

²⁶⁷
Lr is odd-even, while ²⁶⁶
Lr is odd-odd. I know ²⁶⁷
Lr isn't synthesized, but theoretical calculations can be made. 80.98.179.160 (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Odd-odd isotopes may actually be more stable in this region of the chart of nuclides because the odd proton and odd neutron both hinder spontaneous fission; see ²⁷⁷Mt (half-life around 5 ms) and ²⁷⁶Mt (half-life around 0.6 s). Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Also note that ²⁶³Lr and ²⁶⁵Lr are expected to be the beta-stable Lr isotopes, so increasingly heavy Lr isotopes should start to suffer β⁻ decay with decreasing half-lives. Double sharp (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Strange as I readed that odd-odd nuclides have less binding energy than the surrounding odd-even, even-odd, or even-even nuclides. 80.98.179.160 (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Binding energy isn't everything. Yes, it means that β decay can happen to a nearby even-even nuclide, but it's not the only decay mode here. For many even-even superheavy nuclides, SF happens quite quickly as it is not hindered much: for odd-odd superheavy nuclides, it happens quite slowly, and so we have to wait for the β decay instead. That is why ²⁶⁶Lr is long-lived while its probable daughter ²⁶⁶Rf is not. Furthermore, simple calculations of binding energy only tell you that a decay can happen, not how long it will take (it may be slowed down greatly by other factors). Double sharp (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you please kindly give some references that predict ²⁶³Lr and ²⁶⁵Lr to be beta-stable isotopes? Personally I would guess that the odd-A beta-stable isotopes are ^259,261Md, ^263,265No and ²⁶⁷Lr. The chart predicts ²⁶¹Md, ^263,265No and ²⁶⁷Lr to be beta stable. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure where I got that indeed, thanks for the correction. In this old chart ²⁶⁵Lr (but not ²⁶³Lr) is predicted to be the only beta-stable Lr isotope. I wouldn't be surprised if our predictions have improved since then. Double sharp (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! It is a pity that we are nowhere close to being able to verfiy either of the predictions. :( 129.104.241.214 (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Actinoid collisions for transfer reactions (e.g. ²³⁸U+²⁴⁸Cm, or better ²³⁸U+²⁵⁴Es) should allow us to probe this region. So, let's not give up yet. :D For finding ^265,267Lr alone, a long run of ²⁴⁹Bk+⁴⁸Ca would also work: one could search for the 2n channel (needed for ²⁹⁵Ts, which after seven alpha decays reaches ²⁶⁷Lr) and to avoid the 4n chain getting cut off by SF at ²⁸¹Rg or ²⁷⁷Mt. Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)