# Talk:Unbiunium

I changed the the rating to stub, as "5" is not a rating. Beast of traal T C 22:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Beast of traal

Unbiunium's electron configuration will not be [2, 8, 18, 32, 33, 18, 8, 2], it will be [2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 9, 2]. That is clearly wrong. 86.138.142.213 (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You kind of have a point! As you see, in lanthanum, actinium, and thorium, the d-shell  has the electrons even though the Aufbau principle predicted those electrons to go to the f-shell. Similarly, instead of g-shell electrons advancing to the f-shell, it further advances into the d-shell. Tachyon the Comic Creator (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
121 probably goes further in the same way as Lr, because relativity stabilises one of the p-shells: just like Lr has 7p instead of 6d, so 121 should have 8p instead of 5g, 6f, or even 7d. Double sharp (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I think it is the electron configuration of 5g^1 that is wrong. Analogous to Lanthanum and Actinium, one electron in the d-block occurs first, and then the f-block starts. I think the same thing might occur here, where one 7d^1 electron occurs first, before the g-block (in fact I believe one d electron fills, then one f electron, then the g-block, then the rest of the f-block, then the rest of the d-block.) 99.175.101.245 (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It'll actually probably be [2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 8, 3]. Double sharp (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It is probably possible for there to be >120 protons, but when there are 120 electrons, extra electrons probably wouldn't orbit causing the atom to stay as an ion.
207.6.81.95 (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Mr. Anonymous
Pm + Nd=Ubu  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.123.136 (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 

Not likely at all. The probability of fusion decreases very quickly as the projectile grows in size relative to the target. Double sharp (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, E121 and E122 are the last elements for which we have predictions. Unfortunately, they are basically limited to: 1st IE, chemically like the element above them (Ac and Th respectively), and electron configurations relativistically stabilized 8p orbitals (though the dns2 electron configurations of Ac and Th should be the first excited states of E121 and E122), and electron affinity for E121 (La: 0.33 eV, Ac: 0.35 eV, E121: 0.57 eV). Nothing like the wealth of predictions you can find for E119 and E120.
This list contains refs for both E121 and E122.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/109/10/10.1063/1.476995 (121)
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/51/2/10.1063/1.1672080 (and the next few superactinides' EC's; the main point is the relativistic stabilization of 8p)
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/53/6/10.1063/1.1674338 (showing that 8s and then 7d get stabilized, sacrificing the 5g one would expect)
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0953-4075/35/7/307/meta;jsessionid=FE348596ABCF1477381FE1BA5F4FC071.c1 (122)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375947415001463 (very recent article, going to 121 and 122: can anyone access it? The abstract promises some chemistry, so finally we may have enough for an article).
Don't worry, I got it (thanks R8R)! Double sharp (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
https://books.google.com.ru/books?id=K2y5BgAAQBAJ (despite the title, contains also a brief discussion of the energy levels of 121 and 122).
I also note that the most common names for these two elements, besides of course "element 121" and "element 122", are in fact "eka-actinium" and "eka-thorium": you can find these in many of the papers I linked above. So, proof for those who insist that eka-Ac and eka-Th must be E141 and E142 (although if one thinks that way, one probably hasn't seen Fricke's paper, so the insistence would be for E139 and E140). Double sharp (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's another one:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009261416306984
There may soon be enough for an article, but I don't think the time has come quite yet. Double sharp (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

BTW, the predicted atomic weight is not given in Fricke, but is given in the source I linked immediately above (320 amu). Double sharp (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1609/1609.05495.pdf
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.0498.pdf
https://books.google.com/books?id=lUC7CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA292&lpg=PA292&dq=254Es+%2B+50Ti&source=bl&ots=gLGEumPWXm&sig=XGWl84tiTJkbpZpspl0IYOCYLto&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigiPfXqcnTAhWCr48KHc8cChUQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=254Es%20%2B%2050Ti&f=false
http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/36/115/36115264.pdf
http://inspirehep.net/record/1221632/files/jpconf13_413_012002.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/K_Santhosh/publications
Double sharp (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Another one: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00894-021-04861-7 Double sharp (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

22:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI Template:Infobox unbiunium isotopes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)