lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Reliability

message: Is including an actual dictionary definition here a good idea? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.92.51 (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not?  --74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  dictionary definition 

message: Really? I thought they were reliable.  Reliably bad.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.106.106.71 (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: for telecommunications see unreliability

message: Since so much of the infrastructure of Wikipedia is
based on the notion of what is reliable, this definition seems
a little bare.  
My Toyota (for now, no jinxes) is reliable. 
: From a systemic POV, perhaps so.  No evidence provided though.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but not systemic (e.g predictable) POV.  Lots of different options, not all of which are "reliable" or have integrity.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

text: See your NYT comment above.  Reliable has nothing to do with informative in any case.   NYT could be publsihing lies, let readers might find it "informative" even if less than truthful or useful.  Reliable has a certain degree of information integrity to it.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

text: N/A to the topic of reliability.   Entertainment is not the objective.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Not from me, so long as you stick to the topic.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Not exactly NPOV material to discuss "various topics" on this page.  Keep to the topic and it will balanced discussion.  I'd welcome discussion on what is "reliable" and "unreliable" media, but this is not the page for it.  Try media bias. --74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: Sure.  Reliabilty is often specified as 99%, 99.9%, or 99.99% (for example).  But this is just a rule-of-thumb.  I don't think this should be an assumption by any means.  There are orders of magnitude performance difference (and costs) associated with such specifications, so there can be a big difference between 99.0% and 99.45% reliability.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability in Nines? 

message: Please change interwiki link from  ru:Надёжность to ru:Надёжность_(значения) because http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%91%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C article is similar to english article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability
Anna.nozik (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 31 January 2012
Talk:Dynamic equilibrium

message: I don't think that closed system boundary conditions need apply for a dynamic equilibrium to exist.  For example, in my line of work, ecological modeling, we often have systems in which state variables remain constant, while material (and energy for that matter) enters and leaves the model.  All that matters (as I understand things) is that state variables are constant (or constrained within some periodic or quasi-periodic orbit) but remain there as a function of balancing processes.  Comments?  --Plumbago 08:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of a chemical reaction (the main focus of this article) in order to achieve dynamic equilibrium the reaction must be in a closed system. Referring to the bucket of water example given, if the bucket was not kept in a closed (perfectly sealed) room then the water vapour would be able to float out the door and into the world which wouldn't strictly be a closed system as the water vapour would be acted on by other forces (the sun, wind and the such). So in an open system the water vapour would float off and would not have such a large rate of condensing back into the water. So yes in order to achieve dynamic equilibrium in a chemical reaction it must take place in a closed system.       Lastsal 09:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed system 

message: Should static equilibrium really redirect to Mechanical equilibrium ... is there any such thing as static equilibrium outside of mechanics?
:Yes, it's used in economics. -- Beland 03:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Static Equilibrium 

message: This article doesn't really cover the economic concept of dynamic equilibrium in enough detail. -- Beland 03:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic 

message: Dynamic equilibrium is a concept which applies to a wide range of topics, from philosophy (Heraclitus's 'eris dike') to chemistry to control theory. Should this be an article just for the technical chemistry term rather than the more general dynamical systems concept?  ChE Fundamentalist (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make this more general? 

message: The first paragraph does not clearly define Dynamic equilibrium. People need the definition. I need the definition. Somebody please define it.
Andrew Gunner (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: I want to know what is the difference between dynamic and static Equilibrium's Rachoshi (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  dynamic equilibrium 

message: My understanding is that dynamic systems are often drawn toward an attractor. Can this article be improved by integrating a discussion of attractors? Thanks!  Lbeaumont (talk)lbeaumont 14:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attractors
Talk:Isotopes of tin

message: Apart from 5He, 5Li, 6Be and 8Be, Sn is the first element to possess non-alpha-stable isotopes, namely 102Sn (267.1 keV), 103Sn (332.3 keV) and 104Sn (197.2 keV). 129.104.241.214 (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-alpha-stable isotopes of Sn
Talk:Isotopes of antimony

message: The non-alpha-stable isotopes of Sb are 103Sb through 112Sb. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-alpha-stables isotopes of Sb
Talk:Isotopes of tellurium

message: The range of data values for the even Z isotope 52Te Tellurium is from atomic mass value 105 (with 3 extra neutrons to atomic mass value 142 with 38 extra neutrons or 38 atomic mass value numbers. The range of the stable isotope mass numbers is from EE52Te120 with 16 extra neutrons through EE52Te130 with 26 extra neutrons. Of the 11 isotope locations within that span, all 6 of the EE isotopes are stable plus 2 of the 5 EO isotopes. The decay modes outside of that range of isotopes are by B- emission for the heavier isotopes and by B+ emission and/or electron capture for isotopes down to the mass value 110, and a hypothesized alpha emission or B+ emission below that. The central isotope stability trend that runs through the monoisotopic element OE53I127 (with 21 extra neutrons). has the formula A = 3Z - 32.  This line extends to the (almost 100%) isotope OE57La139 with only 25 extra neutrons. The range of alpha emission occurrence by this element is thus well beyond its natural range of occurrence, and may be related to nuclear fission processes.WFPM (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range of data values 

message: Looks more complicated than the article suggests, apparently there are two groups of measurements with conflicting results, see this paper for example. How to include that in the article? --mfb (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  T-130 half-life 

message: Here the 123Te partial half-life for β+/EC is theoretically predicted as (4.2 – 7.2) × 1019 years. Double sharp (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expected decay of <sup>123</sup>Te 

message: The non-alpha-stable isotopes of Te are 104Te through 119Te. A near miss to the beta-stability line! 129.104.241.214 (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-alpha-stables isotopes of Te 

message: It is possible that 104Te has an alpha decay half-life at the order of ps. In any case, it seems that 104Te is the only nuclide yet known to have an alpha half-life between 8Be (81.9 as) and 219Pa (53 ns). 129.104.241.193 (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  alpha half-life of <sup>104</sup>Te
Talk:Isotopes of iodine

message: The #Notable radioisotopes section is severely disorganized. I have made a first pass to sort the isotopes covered by mass number. Iodine-123 and iodine-125 still need to be separated, which is difficult because their similar applications in medicine may result in duplication of information. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No big deal, but looking at  I think these are not 'notable'. Remove, or change the ==h2== to "Per isotope description"?-DePiep (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable radioisotopes section 

message: 137I has an extremely low alpha decay energy of 0.01 MeV, so alpha decay may be possible but with a half-life long beyond imagination. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible alpha decay of <sup>137</sup>I
Talk:Isotopes of barium

message: The article on isotopes of xenon briefly mentions barium-112 as the "heaviest nuclide with equal numbers of protons and neutrons". It isn't in the Ba article; maybe it was discovered recently, or maybe it isn't confirmed and the article on isotopes of Xe needs fixing. Can someone fix this? It's beyond my level of expertise. Oaklandguy (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a reference on it, but it requires subscription to access: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-70609-0_115. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barium 112? 

message: The following table is made according to the trend shown in  as well as the Geiger-Nuttall law.
n 	5n2nX	Alpha decay energy (MeV)	Possible order of theoretical alpha decay half-life
27	135Xe	Alpha stable            	Alpha stable
28	140Ba	0.74                    	1042 yr
29	145Ce	0.20                    	10118 yr
30	150Nd	Alpha stable            	Alpha stable
31	155Sm	Alpha stable            	Alpha stable
32	160Gd	Alpha stable            	Alpha stable
33	165Dy	Alpha stable            	Alpha stable
34	170Er	0.05                    	10408 yr
35	175Yb	0.60                    	1084 yr
36	180Hf	1.29                    	1045 yr
37	185W 	1.59                    	1046 yr
38	190Os	1.38                    	1047 yr
39	195Pt	1.19                    	1064 yr
40	200Hg	0.72                    	1095 yr
41	205Pb	1.47                    	1051 yr
 2A04:CEC0:1011:B1F1:C5E3:F416:5CD7:1B03 (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible alpha decay of <sup>140</sup>Ba 

message: NUBASE2020 says 12C<0.0034 for 114Ba.
In the explanation there is a sentence "α=? means that the α-decay is observed, but its intensity is not experimentally known". It does not explain for "(decay mode)<(upper limit)". 129.104.241.214 (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  When NUBASE2020 lists only an upper limit for the intensity of a decay mode, has the process been observed?
Talk:Isotopes of lanthanum

message: 71La lanthanum is the first of the 2 + 4 + 4 + 4 = 14 element "lanthanide" series of the periodic table. And 71La Lanthanum is the first element of the accumulative expansion process of the atomic structure beyond the creation of a sixth internal alpha particle on top of a 6 x 6 = 36 area square nucleon structure at 56Ba Barium. This reduces the stability of the structure such that only the isotope 71OELa139 is stable and the isotope 71OOLa138 has a long half-lived (10^E 11.8yr) unstable isotope. However the next lower 2 OE isotopes (71OELa134 and &1OELa132) Are shown to be below the graphical stability trend line for the range of the unstable OE isotopes.WFPM (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Stability data

message: 143La has an alpha decay energy of 0.09 MeV, which is very low, so alpha decay may be possible but with a half-life long beyond imagination. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible alpha decay of <sup>143</sup>La
Talk:Isotopes of cerium

message: Cerium141 was made in the Trinity nuclear bomb test, and could from what I watched only be produced by a nuclear explosion. It exposed Kodak film across the country from the processing plants. I notice the page now simply says half-life and that it's 'synthetic'.
Cristiano Toàn (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And it also has a note in the main table pointing out that Ce-141 is a fission product. Double sharp (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear bomb fallout? 

message: According to , 142Ce should have an alpha decay half-life at the order of 1027 years. It is likely that its alpha decay is not ignorable compared to double beta decay:  gives the theoretical half-life of double beta decay at the order of 1023 years. Given the predictions, N = 84 (double beta for 142Ce), 85 (145Nd), 87 (149Sm), 105 (177Hf), 106 (double beta for 176Yb and alpha for 178Hf) and 111 (187Os) would have no isotones with half-life exceeding the currently known longest half-life: 2.2×1024 years for 128Te.
144Ce and 145Ce have respectively an alpha decay energy of 0.41 MeV and 0.20 MeV, which is quite low, so alpha decays may be possible but with half-lives very long: at the order of 10118 years for 145Ce given by the Geiger-Nuttall law. 2A04:CEC0:1930:1F41:6CF4:C74A:1EC0:E0D8 (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible alpha decay of <sup>142,144,145</sup>Ce
Talk:Isotopes of praseodymium

message: According to , 143Pr should have a partial alpha decay half-life at the order of 1019 years.
142Pr and 147Pr both have an alpha decay energy of 0.31 MeV, which is very low, so alpha decay may be possible but with a half-life long beyond imagination. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible alpha decay of <sup>142,143,147</sup>Pr
Talk:Isotopes of neodymium

message: Hi everyone!
Look, 27.2% (142Nd) + 12.2% (143Nd) + 23.8% (144Nd) + 8.3% (145Nd) + 17.2% (146Nd) + 5.8% (148Nd) + 5.6% (150Nd) =100.10% (but not exactly 100%)
In your case the Standard atomic weight will be 144.384!
Please find and correct mistake!-Surprizi (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked and only from 142Nd we can take out 0.10% to receive Standard atomic weight — 144.242. So in my opinion 142Nd percentage should be 27.1% not 27.2%.-Surprizi (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably there's a rounding error in the table or the source. I will take a look later. ComplexRational (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

text: Standard atomic weight is given in . In fact, this source is already present in the article. -DePiep (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

text: It's because 142Nd is 27.152(40)% which was rounded to 27.2%. Double sharp (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: According to , 143Nd (N = 83),  145Nd (N = 85) and 146Nd (N = 86) should respectively have an α decay half-life at the order of 1088 years, 1022 years and 1034 years. Given the trend, 147Nd (N = 87) may have an alpha decay partial half-life at the order of 1052 years.
148Nd (N = 88) should have an α decay half-life at the order of 1070 years. Note that alpha decay of 146Nd would be non-ignorable (having significant branching ratio) compared to the theoretical half-life of double beta decay at the order of either 1028 years given in ,  or 1033 years given in .
139Nd (N = 79) and 149Nd (N = 89) have respectively an alpha decay energy of 0.21 MeV and 0.29 MeV, which is quite low, so alpha decay may be possible but with a partial half-life long beyond imagination. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible α decay of several isotopes of neodymium
Talk:Juan Emilio Cheyre

message: the writing of this article lack a more objective style, and should reflect a more factual approach to commentary.
Much of the POV stuff was taken out, so I have removed the  tag.  Amalas 15:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Isotopes of promethium

message: This isotope is noted to have an uncharacteristically low half-life (40.5 seconds) with reference to the half-lives of its nearest OO neighbors, namely OO61Pm144 (360days), and OO61Pm140 (5.87 minutes), thus causing an irregularity in the OO stability profile line.WFPM (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  OO61Pm 142 

message: According to page 100 of NUBASE2020, the possibility of positron emission among beta plus decay of 144Pm is <8×10-5%. which is extremely low considering the very large energy difference between 144Pm and 144Nd (2.3321 MeV). 129.104.241.214 (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positron emission of <sup>144</sup>Pm 

message: According to , 146Pm and 147Pm should have a partial alpha decay half-life at the order of 1018 years and 1022 years. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible alpha decay of <sup>146</sup>Pm and <sup>147</sup>Pm
Talk:Isotopes of europium

message: The reported half-lives do not agree with the half-life trend line of the rest of the 63Eu Europium OO type isotopes.WFPM (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Low Half-life values of OO63Eu144 and OO63Eu140

message: This is energetically allowed, and also we observe a 89% probability of the β- decay of 150mEu. However, just like to case of 98Tc whose decay to 98Mo is unknown, do we know that it is impossible, or it's just we haven't observed that mode of decay? 129.104.241.214 (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could <sup>150</sup>Eu possibly undergo β- decay to <sup>150</sup>Gd? 

message: According to , 146Eu (N = 83) and 149Eu (N = 86) should respectively have a partial alpha decay half-life of at least 1022 years and 109 years. 149Eu has similar alpha decay energy as its decay product (2.40 MeV for 149Eu and 2.32 MeV for 145Pm), and 146Eu has lower decay energy than 151Eu (1.60 MeV vs. 1.96 MeV).
As for 144Eu (N = 81) and 145Eu (N = 82), they have respectively an alpha decay energy of 0.16 MeV and 0.10 MeV, which are much too low, so their partial alpha decay half-lives should be long beyond imagination. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 06:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible alpha decay of <sup>144,145,146,149</sup>Eu 

message: Beginning of the article states that 152m2Eu has a half-life of 96 min, but the table states that it's false and that it's actually 152m5Eu with a half-life of 96 min. 24.115.255.37 (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, as given in ; thanks for catching this. Complex/Rational 21:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: you're welcome. 24.115.255.37 (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  disagreement between beginning and table
Talk:Iwan Thomas

message: This page is more like a fanclub page than a serious encyclopedia article. We do not need to know the times for all of his races for example. This article has no structure, it needs to be broken down into manageable sub-sections. No references are cited. This article does not maintain a neutral point of view, with statements such as is without doubt one of the finest 400m runners that Britain has ever seen and superb form. Alun 12:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redrafted the article extensively.  I've tried to avoid removing information but have taken out long sections of prose and some aspects which may well have been copyvios.  Hopefully now the article is in a format and structure that can be worked on and developed. MLA 15:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article
Talk:Isotopes of terbium

message: The alpha decay energy of 155Tb (N = 90) is only 0.98 MeV, so the expected alpha half-life is very long. The decay energy is lower than 1.96 MeV of its alpha product 151Eu, 1.60 MeV of its double alpha product 147Pm and 1.73 MeV of its triple alpha product 143Pr. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible alpha decay of <sup>155</sup>Tb and <sup>157</sup>Tb
Talk:Isotopes of dysprosium

message: 154Dy is the last beta-nuclide such that N:Z = 4:3. 7n3nX is beta stable for n = 1, even numbers from 10 to 18 and 22 (not primordial for n = 22).
Cristiano Toàn (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The last beta-stable nuclide of odd mass number with ''N''/''Z'' = 4/3 

message: According to , several isotopes of dysprosium should have an alpha decay half-life at the order of:
156Dy: 1024 years (note that the alpha decay energy is 1.7530 MeV, which is lower than 2.2044 MeV of its alpha product 152Gd, 1.9868 MeV of its double alpha product 148Sm and 1.9032 MeV of its triple alpha product 144Nd). This link predicts 2.2×1024 years. Alpha decay could be non-ignorable compared to double beta: Assuming that logT2β = A logQ2β + B and using the trend shown in , its double beta decay half-life should be at the order of 1020 years;
158Dy: 1058 years (note that the alpha decay energy is 0.8737 MeV, which is lower than 0.9203 MeV of its alpha product 154Gd, 1.4498 MeV of its double alpha product 150Sm, 1.1824 MeV of its triple alpha product 146Nd and 1.3035 MeV of its quadruple alpha product 142Ce);
160Dy: 10105 years;
161Dy: 10129 years;
162Dy: 10304 years.
According to , several isotopes of dysprosium should have a partial alpha decay half-life at the order of:
147Dy (N = 81): 1023 years;
148Dy (N = 82): 1025 years;
149Dy (N = 83): 109 years;
155Dy (N = 89): 1010 years (note that the alpha decay energy is 2.61 MeV, which is even slightly lower than 2.65 MeV of its alpha product 151Gd). 129.104.241.214 (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible alpha decay of several isotopes of dysprosium
Talk:Isotopes of holmium

message: According to , several isotopes of holmium should have a partial alpha decay half-life at the order of:
148Ho (N = 81): 1020 years;
149Ho (N = 82): 1016 years;
150Ho (N = 83): 105 years.
As for 163-166Ho, they have repectively an alpha decay energy of 0.73 MeV, 0.43 MeV, 0.14 MeV and 0.18 MeV, which are quite low, so alpha decay may be possible but with a half-life long beyond imagination (perhaps 1047 years or more). It should be remarked that  predicts an extremely long half-life of the decay of 165Ho (at the order of 10240 years). 129.104.241.214 (talk) 05:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible alpha decay of several isotopes of holmium
Talk:Isotopes of erbium

message: The list doesn't have "decay energy"!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.126.202.81 (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lose the column "decay energy" 

message: This is amazing. There are 26 isomers listed, and the sole decay mode is isomer transition for all of them except 145mEr, 147mEr, 149m1Er and 151m1Er. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Among the 26 isomers of erbium, only 4 show decay mode other than isomer transition? 

message: 164Er has a theoretical double beta decay energy of 23.723 keV, which is lowest double beta decay energy I can recall. Assuming that logT2β = A logQ2β + B and using the trend shown in , the double beta half-life 164Er should be at the order of 1037 years. It is likely that its alpha decay is not ignorable compared to double beta decay:  gives the theoretical half-life of double beta decay at the order of 1040 years. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you calculate the theoretical half-life of double beta decay of Zinc-64 & Zinc-70 Cristiano Toàn (talk) 10:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2023.122628 gives that the double β- half-life 70Zn should be around 1.050×1023 years. As for 64Zn, there are fewer theories available for double EC, and I could not find any explicit prediction (but https://doi.org/10.3390/universe10020098 should be useful, though). 129.104.241.193 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible double beta decay of <sup>164</sup>Er