# Talk:Fermium

Is fermium used for anything? Porygon-Z 13:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)  

Not currently. It's too short-lived and hard to make in sufficient quantities. Double sharp (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
What about the fermium ytterbium alloy in the picture? Porygon-Z 15:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs) 
Presumably it is mostly Yb with only tiny amounts of Fm. Double sharp (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Still a use, right? Shouldn't you put it in the article? Porygon-Z 16:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
If it has Fermium in it shouldn't it be classified as a use? And it even has a use! Porygon-Z (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
If Fermium is used in the Fm-Yb bowl, it could have a scientific use( although not a public one but still)! Wouldn't this be classified as a use? UB Blacephalon (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ferminum. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Under the section “Isotopes”, it says, “Because of this impediment in forming heavier isotopes, these short-lived isotopes 258–260Fm constitute the so-called "fermium gap."” It cites a PDF. However, the citation should say which page of the PDF uses the term “fermium gap” (answer: page 11); so that readers can verify that “fermium gap” is a real term.

Pretty reasonable. Also considering that reference is only cited once in the article, I have added the page number. Complex/Rational 15:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much for adding a page number. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Btw, should a Wikipedia article “Fermium gap” be created? Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say no because to my knowledge, the term "fermium gap" isn't in widespread use; many of its occurrences are only in publications by the same authors. The extent of the gap is also not entirely known because many adjacent nuclides have not yet been synthesized and thus detailed information would be pure speculation, with considerable variation across different sources. However, there might be enough to support a section in isotopes of fermium, to which a redirect could be created. Complex/Rational 15:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I am convinced that the gap is real. The very short spontaneous fission half-life of fermium-258 (370 microsecond), should by itself be enuf to make it very hard to synthesize elements beyond fermium, by neutron bombardment, as opposed to the much less efficient method of bombarding heavy nuclei with lighter nuclei. And fermium-259 apparently also has a very short SF half-life. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
My mistake. You wrote, "The extent of the gap is also not entirely known". I misread it as "The existence of the gap is also not entirely known", implying that it is not certain that the gap is real, so i defended the notion that said gap is real. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Under the section "Isotopes", it says, "...neutron capture cannot be used to create nuclides with a mass number greater than 257, unless carried out in a nuclear explosion." Actually, i don't think nuclides with mass number > 257 are created even in nuclear explosions; again, due to the fermium gap. When they discovered einsteinium and fermium in the debris from nuclear explosions, they found that elements beyond fermium did not occur in said debris. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)