Talk:Oganesson/Archive 1

message: "Transuranic elements (those beyond uranium) are, except for microscopic quantities, always artificially produced..."
I think this sentence is misleading due to its confusing structure.  It sounds like transuranic elements are always produced in small amounts which is not true of elements such as, say, Plutonium. I'm changing it to read better and be less confusing. --Mechcozmo 06:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch the above idea, seeing as that block of text is actually a template.  I'm off to fix the issue still. --Mechcozmo 06:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Small amounts?

message: from VfD:
* Delete. Another vanity element that has not been discovered and does not exist except as speculation by scientists that the article agrees are guilty of falsifying their evidence. Sciencecruft. Trollminator 17:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, man, oh man. Sciencecruft? That's classic, that's genius. Who else thinks this should go to BJAODN? -Toptomcat 03:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I got here from searching for "sciencecruft" as a joke :) Also note the submitters name. He's a relatively sophisticated troll, isn't he? Suboptimal Username 11:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old VFD

message: It absolutely will be a noble gas when it's produced--so should it really say 'presumably'?
Uuo is in the gropus of noble gases, but remember that each time noble gases are more active, and Uuo is speculated to be much more active than Rn.
:That's kind of irrelevant isn't it? It's still a noble gas even if it is more reactive then fluorine (okay this is not possible my point is that it doesn't matter how reactive it is)... Nil Einne 08:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The whole presumably a noble gas bit 

message: >> In the fictional universe of Star Trek: The Next Generation, the episode "Rascals" depicted a trans-periodic table, which depicted element number 118 as being named accurentum, with atomic weight of 293. The chemical symbol for accurentum, Ac, conflicts with that of actinium.  It is then reasonable to assume that in this fictitious future that Actinium had a different symbol.
:Removed it, irrelevant and questionable. The table is shown at http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Table_of_Elements, it seems doubtful that one can read the atomic number in Rascals. The table is also featured in detail in TNG The Continuing Mission , which still has about as much relevance to this article as daffyduckium should have to francium. Femto 12:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the removal but wouldn't say it's impossible to read. From that picture yes. But it's not clear what the source was and how large a part of the scene it was. For example, if there are parts where it takes up the whole scene then it will most likely be visible on the DVD. Also, I'm not sure what Rascals what shot with but it seems possible a HDTV version would make it even more likely to be visible (as stated it depends on what the source is) Nil Einne 08:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shouldn't this whole Accurentum thing be put into Fictional applications of real materials, and a link to that placed in the "see also" of this article? Cf. Uup. Mooncow 10:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek 

message: Why is the neutron in the retracted chemical equation have a 3 up top (for its mass number)?  Shouldn't it be 3 1-0n?Olin 18:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 3-0 n thing 

message: wth is this supposed to mean, an atom that won't bond to anything certainly isn't going to act like a semiconductor is it?! Plugwash 23:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chemical bonding is more complicated than you think. Xenon trioxide, for example, exists. --Vuo 23:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  standard semiconductive?! 

message: I removed the following sentence, because I have not been able to find a source for it.  As far as I can tell, Uuo-239 has not been made.  If someone has a source, then they can put it back in. Olin 17:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was probably the discredited claim referred to in the Vfd above. — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)04:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed phrase 

message: If I read this right, are they claiming to have synthesized isotope 295?--Syd Henderson 05:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't read the article (don't currently have access to journals and I've only done basic physics anyway) but how could you (indirectly) detect something which doesn't occur naturally if you didn't sythesise it? Nil Einne 09:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think what the user meant was that they had synthesised it but not detected it directly - they only managed to detect the products of its decay. --John24601 09:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe but "they had detected it, not sythesised it" is a strange way of saying "they synthesised it but didn't detect it directly" to me... Nil Einne 11:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe "They claimed to have synthesised it due to detecting its expected decay products" or something along those lines? -- 86.128.253.74 14:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 2006 Synthesis? 

message: Is the time reported a half life or a lifetime?  How can you have a half life with 3 atoms? Olin 18:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk pages aren't really meant to teach physics, but in summary, the half-life is a mathematical way to illustrate decay probability. After one half-life, half of the nuclei have decayed, on average. Half-life (t½) and decay probability per second (λ) are related by t½ = (ln 2)/λ. --Vuo 15:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, what's the reported uncertainty? 0.89 ms doesn't have to mean much if it's something asymmetric like +200-8 or so. Femto 11:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what a half-life is, my point is, if you have three atoms, you really can't statistically determine a half-life.  You just don't have enough atoms.  (When do you go from three atoms to one and a half?  Would three atoms of Uuo really follows the same statistics?)  I don't have access to the paper, but I seriously doubt, but do not know, it's a "true" half-life. Olin 12:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point that Vuo was making is that you can still calculate a half-life with only three lifetime measurements. You don't do it experimetally by timing how long until half the atoms have decayed, you do it mathematically by fitting the lifetime measurements to an exponential curve and then working backwards to determine the decay-constant. Of course, with only three data points, the fractional statistical error in the result is rather large. I think it's simply ±1/\sqrt3, ie ±57%. So the final figure would read 0.89 ± 0.50 ms.Oscar Bravo 12:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half life 

message: According to another wikipedia page, Rutherfordium 265 has a halflife of 13 hours.  267 has a halflife of 5 hours.  Either this page is wrong or this one is: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_rutherfordium
And Seaborgium 271 is listed on its page as a half life of 2.4 min versus 1.9 min on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaborgium
:This is not actually related to 294Uuo, which was produced, but to a control experiment to detect 295Uuo, which was not observed. Nevertheless, the article actually gives the figures 1.9 min and 1.3 hours. --Vuo 15:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rutherfordium 267 

message: Ununoctium has atomic number 118, but it is listed as 119 in many parts of this article.
:User:Expensivehat appears to have gotten confuse. It's been fixed... Nil Einne 11:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, this vandal hasn't been reverted completely. Femto 11:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, didn't look properly Nil Einne 12:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake 

message: Ack!  Some of us don't like the Bohrmodel of the atom and object to the shell model picture given in the article.  It's wrong.  It takes us teachers tons of time to undo the damage done by bad teachers and diagrams like this--it's not accurate, and it's not necessary!  Please, I urge people to not put stuff like this in there. Olin 19:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and removed. Femto 19:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bohr 

message: I propose that this element be named Forrealthistimeium in honor of Victor Ninov's shenanigans. =P —Keenan Pepper 20:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need a Latin name for an element: eg. Veritashunctempum. Nonetheless, "Shenanigan" and "particle physicist" aren't two words I would normally associate with each other. --Grimhelm 17:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was proposing an hypothetical name cirtyon. It should ends with -on because this element is a noble gas. I observed that all noble gases except helium (lightest noble gas, located in s-block, unlike other noble gas which located in p-block) with official names were ends with -on. Also for halogens, it should all end with -ine, e.g. iodine, astatine, and wakine for element 117 (ununseptium) hypothetical name. Noble gases and halogens are the chemical series of the periodic table. However, chemists proposed two possible names: ghiorsium (Gh) after Albert Ghiorso and moskowium (Mk) after Moscow in Russia. These names ends with -ium despite the noble gas, but is would still be a good names. Now, I am proposing a name moskon (Mk) better than moskowon in analogy to moskowium. Cosmium 03:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Notice that this page is for discussion about the article, not the element itself. No name proposals can be made here. Of course, you're free to make a name proposal anywhere else, but the best place would be the IUPAC conference about the element, and it would help if you were the discoverer. --Vuo 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name proposal 

message: On the WikiPedia main page it says that, The chemical element with the atomic number 118, temporarily designated Ununoctium, is synthesized in Dubna, Russia.. However, nowhere in this article is Dubna mentioned. So where did the experiment occur - Dubna or Berkeley?--Oscar Bravo 08:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article links to Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, which is in Dubna. —Keenan Pepper 23:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not everyone would know that... Anyway, the article stated; ...researchers from Russia's Joint Institute for Nuclear Research and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California announced... So we know where the people came from, but not where they did the work. I've rewritten the sentence to make it clearer --Oscar Bravo 08:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California has no cyclotron so it couldn't be performed there in the first place.--mitchandre 03:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: True, I didn't find any mention of that in the article and clarified that, adding Dubna where appropriate. It should be noted, that quite a lot of English sources just omit the place, where the experiment was physically conducted. One of a few that does not is , and it says the reaction took place in Dubna. Cmapm 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where was it first synthesized? 

message: Does anyone know why the IUPAC doesn't just adopt the systematic element names as permanent names for all the newly-discovered elements? It's better than having to go through possible naming controversies again. Also, you'd be able to tell how many protons an element has by its element name without having to refer to a periodic table. Wikipedian06 00:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do all of these elements have to be named after scientists? 

message: I think one of these is the new equation from the abstract, but I'm not sure.  Could someone check and put it in the article?
:\,^{249}_{98}\mathrm{Cf} + \,^{48}_{20}\mathrm{Ca} \, \to \,^{297}_{118}\mathrm{Uuo} 
:\,^{249}_{98}\mathrm{Cf} + \,^{48}_{20}\mathrm{Ca} \, \to \,^{294}_{118}\mathrm{Uuo} + 3 \; ^1_0\mathrm{n} \; 
Olin 18:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be the second one -- which was in the main article only a few days ago . Also, note the references to ununoctium-294 and 294Uuo in the bottom of the "History" section. --Ben Best 20:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I am putting it in the article, as you requested. --Ben Best 20:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  formula 

message: is it 100% accurate? Because some of the other elements (like Argon) have got this info wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KevinWindows (talk • contribs) .
:Being an educated guess it's not 100% accurate by definition. Reference for all elements is Electron configurations of the elements (data page). Femto 14:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrons/shell 

message: I believe the IUPAC "temporary naming" standard was cancelled a few years ago, because nobody was using it.  In fact, even the cited articles use formats like 297118 instead of 297Uuo.  Of course, correcting this would involve renaming and editing the content of several articles . . .  Beearkkey 05:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't heard about that. Do you have a reference? Itub 13:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the title be changed? 

message: This image should now have 176N [N=neutrons] instead of 175N (mass 294 instead of retracted Ninov e.a. mass 293). I cannot change a *.png picture, can anyone do it for me? Hans van Deukeren 21:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image: Uuo-TableImage.png 

message: I've removed the text "[probably] the second radioactive gaseous element and".  Element 112 seems to be gaseous based on evidence so far, and I'm not sure it is the only one. I've added a lot of citation needed tags - for one thing I can't tell whether these are relatively uninformed speculations, or whether they are based on relativistic computations (which were done for many of the undiscovered superheavy elements as long ago as the 60's, although the field continues to evolve). Kingdon 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical properties 

message: I'm sorrry, but though it passes the other criteria, it has citation needed tags in the lead for facts not dealt with elsewhere in the article, and so cannot pass. However, once this is fixed, I'll be happy to have another look. Just put a message on my talk page. Adam Cuerden talk 13:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: I'll just give my $0.02: this article in its current state needs too much work to be put on hold. Sorry. Here are some more detailed criticisms, based upon the GA criteria:
1. Well written: Fail. E.g. the last sentence of the Discovery section is very repetitive, and could have been far better represented by a decay scheme. The text contains way too much detail (the fusion cross section springs into mind) and the context surrounding all the numbers is completely missing. Is 4×1019 calcium ions really that much? A chemistry student will immediately say: that's only 0.0001 mole of calcium, not much at all.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: pass.
3. Broad in its coverage. Fail, and probably the biggest hurdle to be taken. This article deals almost exclusively with the discovery of Uuo. Imagine an article about America only mentioning its discovery by Columbus, perfectly understandable if it had just been discovered, but hardly GA material. Now I understand that at the moment not much more can be said as there is still to little verifiable info, but articles about chemical elements should contain some information about chemical and physical properties, isotopes, electron structure, applications and so on.
4. NPOV: not an issue, pass.
5. Stability: seems stable enough, pass.
6. Figures. Fail. The picture describes another not yet discovered isotope (293Uuo), leading to confusion.
All this leads me to fail the GA nomination, and I suggest waiting until more data is available on Uuo before you try again. Errabee 03:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second GA review

message: There is a giant picture of a large penis overlaid on top of the article. The problem is, I don't see the vandal in the history, and I can't see how to edit it out. Any help? THis is disgusting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.176.178 (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Giant Penis Vandalism

message: The reason, in my guessing, it says "presumably a noble gas" is that, according to the semimetal theory (i.e. staircase), Uuo would lie on said staricase, and thus most likely be a semimetal. However, it would also be a noble gas. I am not an expert on chemistry, but I do not think a semimetal would likely be a gas at standard temperature, so which one is it? Presumably noble gas, but nobody knows for certain. Smartyllama 12:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if "it is a noble gas" is quite a testable hypothesis, but related things are, along the lines of "should have low reactivity except in compounds analogous to the known noble gas compounds" (and all the usual suspects like ionization energies, etc).  There are ways of calculating these things from the relativistic Schrödinger equation, but I don't know if anyone has for 118.  For some of the other transuranic elements, they have, and for element 112 there is even some (small amount of) experimental data on the chemistry. Kingdon 15:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presumably a noble gas 

message: I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 10, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: pass
:2. Factually accurate?: pass
:3. Broad in coverage?: pass
:4. Neutral point of view?: pass
:5. Article stability? pass
:6. Images?: pass
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.</div> --Itub (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: *http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/article.cgi/jpcafh/2005/109/i15/pdf/jp050736o.pdf 
*http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v77/i27/p5350_1
*https://www.llnl.gov/str/April07/pdfs/04_07.4.pdf
*http://books.google.com/books?id=e53sNAOXrdMC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=element+118+properties&source=web&ots=5mvDRVaR63&sig=htZjh-ZG_vTPQtPVoGdaC49dRE0
*http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223151948.htm
*http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVN-436N4SG-5&_user=1010281&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050264&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1010281&md5=b9ad367384898dcc449bc96d849f0e7c#
*http://books.google.com/books?id=0xcAM5BzS-wC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=element+118+properties&source=web&ots=esg21xqEdc&sig=oOHIOIdlgE5UB8izXPweRWjlQGk
*http://lch.web.psi.ch/pdf/anrep03/06.pdf
*http://lch.web.psi.ch/pdf/anrep03/05.pdf
*http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=5&article=cyclotron
*http://books.google.com/books?id=0xcAM5BzS-wC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=element+118+theoretical+properties+chemical&source=web&ots=esg21xsGd7&sig=HBA6tcR9_F64jrIEdJMHZH9jfwE#PPA105,M1
*http://www.springerlink.com/content/647346262813n166/
*http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PhRvA..67b0102G
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs) 10:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible References

message: Bonding and noble need disambig. Randomblue (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambig 

message: I know its quite a ways off, but I think we could nominate this article for Today's FA for October 16, 2008. I just wanted to voice the idea now so hopefully someone will remember to nominate it. Thingg⊕⊗ 01:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion for October 16, 2008

message: I've noticed some confusion about the required entry in the standard atomic weight box for many elements. For wholly synthetic radioactive elements, the term is used to describe the mass number for the isotope with the longest known half life. For ununoctium, this is 294 by definition. Many people have used predictions calculated on Apsidium. However, there are serious problems with this:
a) it's not real science
b) the value provided is a 'significant mass atom' value, which isn't an official term
c) the mass number of the most stable isotope for a superheavy element is almost entirely determined by shell effects and in particular the height of the fission barrier. The calculations of this require
real maths!
In summary, if you want wikipedia to be accurate, do not reference apsidium! Drjezza (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; similarly, all the "predicted" melting and boiling points and such should be removed unless they refer to a real source such as a journal article and not a website which got them out of who-knows-where. --Itub (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the critical points are debatable. It will be extremely expensive to find it experimentally and theoretically, several different points are predicted. For example one reference above says that the element might be solid at normal conditions. Nergaal (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a joke to publish boiling points. It is the stupidest thing imaginable. How can one atom have a boiling point? I would like to see this very much removed.Mitchandre (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The boiling point can be estimated using the methods discussed in the references. There is some uncertainty, but it is still serious science (although of theoretical). --Itub (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not serious. What is the boiling point of a single atom of carbon? What phase would it even be? You say there is uncertainty, but that puts it nicely, its illogical to assign bulk properties to single atoms. In the end you do a disservice to science, by ignoring fundamental tenets of atom-at-a-time chemistry just in order to be internally consistent with other elemental wikipedia pages. That being said, I know you are taking a very balanced approach to this, but in this case it's just silly.Mitchandre (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: thermodynamical properties refer to A BULK!!!! the boiling temperature is determined THEORETICALLY for a buck of a substance, not for 3 atoms. Nergaal (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: by the way, did you even read the references before you started trolling here? did you read the extrapolated word in from of the value of the boiling point???? if no, please troll on some other page. Nergaal (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying you are about to write something silly doesn't excuse the silliness. The bulk argument makes no sense for two reasons,  you could never make enough. Even if you could, the intense radiation generated would change any measured macroscopic quantity. Trolling, I guess if you confuse passion for trolling, I suppose. I'm in the field, so it just really irks the rational part of the brain. Mitchandre (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you are in the field, why don't you write a letter to the editor of J. Phys. Chem. A criticizing the theoretical paper from which we got the predicted boiling point? Once you get it published, we can quote it on Wikipedia. --Itub (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Suppose you are completely wrong and one of the not-yet-discovered isotopes will have a half-life on the order of days (enough to obtain miligram quantities). Then what is the point of your entire argument? As for the second part of the argument, similarly people could have said about francium that it is so radioactive and reactive that is no point to think about the melting temperature of the pure metal. Yet, francium has a determined melting point, mostly because techniques have allowed to work with both high radioactivity and reactivity - this is even though the actual value of the melting point has little appicability (yet). The latter will not be the case for Uuo. The first one is probably much harder to control, but you should never predict that breakthroughs will not happen. AND, since you completely skipped over this idea it is OBVIOUS you are not from the field (of research). You may work with some radioactive materials, but it is definately not real research. If you are truly passionate, then I suggest you switch to (real) reasearch or at least learn about it. Nergaal (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me just say first, I'm not interested in furthering my argument against including the bulk data, I willfully concede this point. Kind of annoying to have to prove credentials but here you go. http://heavyelements.lbl.gov/mitch.htm Remember, even if a longer half-life was found in the couple day region, it would still take months just to make a few atoms of the element; so yes you still can't make enough for bulk measurements that way. Also, due to the nature of heavy element synthesis, something that decays on the order of days would be extraordinarily hard to detect out of normal background in one of these experiments. 2nd point, Radiation affects are a known problem, I'm not sure how the Francium melting point was determined, but I assume it was done with this in mind. Mitchandre (talk) 01:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard Atomic Weight 

message: I normally wouldn't bother, but since this is a FA, the periodic table image should be redone. The last update used the reduced 800-px thumb rather than the full resolution image. kwami (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  image 

message: Don't want to change this on an FA I'm not involved with, but "all isotopes with an atomic number above 101 decay radioactively with a halflife under a day" appears to be wrong. Dubnium is said to have an isotope at 37 hrs. kwami (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been modified in the past to reflect this, but I think there was a discussion about weather the half life was either 32, 26, or 16 hours. I don't remember exactly what was the resolution to the debate, but it seems like it was 16? Nergaal (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But the Dubnium isotopes article has not been brought into agreement, unless it's been modified since then. (And the table of isotopes now shows Db in pink. I did that, based on the isotopes article.) kwami (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  error? 

message: Although the boiling point and critical point given are both sourced, they are to different articles and contradict one another. The critical T and P given would imply a boiling temperature around 260 K by analogy with the other noble gases, whereas its being a solid would require a much higher critical point.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.28.241 (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like to make a very, very large donation (see below section on cost) to a major university near you, perhaps they could build a facility that might someday answer this question, and name it after you. Zaphraud (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's a problem 

message: I think it would be neat to ad a trivia section about this element, mainly to state Robert Lassar's wild claim about 118 being a fuel for UFO's.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.254.168 (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't relevant. There's too much of pointless trivia like this in many articles. Lassar could've used element 188 instead, and it would not be any different with respect to real elements. --Vuo (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Section? 

message: Is 
a reliable source for the old rumoured name "dubnadium"? (He doesn't give another source for this.) The author (Mr Trapp) claims to be a scientist, but according to his vita he seems not to have a Ph.D. And even if it is, should we have debunked rumours like this in the article?--Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just a personal website, so I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source. --Itub (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, then I'll remove the claim. It's also dubious because of its similarity to the then already existing name "dubnium". --Roentgenium111 (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable source? 

message: Too specialized for me to determine myself whether this is an error, but the sentence , which may undergo spontaneous fission or alpha decay into , which will undergo spontaneous fission., appears on first blush to contains a redundancy by the last mention of spontaneous fission. If it doesn't then it appears incomplete. It certainly doesn't read well to have the sentence end in the manner it does.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know the subject in any detail, but did Chemistry at university more than a decade ago, I would assume from the sentence what is meant is that  can alpha decay to  or it can undergo spontaneous fission.  (if it is created) would also be expected to undergo spontaneous fission. Not sure the best way to describe it though. --86.129.6.0 (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible error 

message: I noticed that while the article prose says "The daughter nucleus 290Uuh is very unstable, decaying with a half-life of 14 milliseconds into 286Uuq" the decay diagram alongside it, shown to the right here, indicates that that half-life is 10.0 ms. Which is the correct half-life?  01:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe average lifetime and half-life are confused. The Oganessian article can be confusing in this respect. --Vuo (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 14/10 is close to ratio 0.5/(1/e) where e=2.71828... i.e. this indeed could be a half decay and a monoexponential lifetime. Materialscientist (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half-life inconsistency? 

message: In this image :File:Island-of-Stability.png, is it just me, or does the island not extend up to 118 protons or so? It doesn't seem like it gets up to 115 protons, let alone 188. Anybody else agree? --Rajah (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it doesn't reach 118, but the text apparently uses "extrapolation" of the image (assuming the element-118 is at the edge of the island). What is the problem? Why 188? Materialscientist (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Island of stability image , does it have a point for 118 Protons?

message: The first sentence of this section says:
:There are no elements with an atomic number above 83 (after bismuth) that have stable isotopes (or measurable decay lifetimes).
I think the part in brackets says the opposite of what it should. All elements above bismuth have measurable decay lifetimes, ie are not fully stable.-gadfium 00:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And it should say lead, not bismuth. Bi-209 sticks around for a long, long time, but it is radioactive.72.178.12.19 (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nucleus stability and isotopes

message: The cost of Uuo needs to be found, it is proving rather hard to find.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewismith3 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to say because it is not something you can buy. How would you define the cost? As the total worth of the research grants that funded the research that lead to its discovery? In that case it will appear to be a very expensive element indeed (probably hundreds of thousands of dollars per atom!) --Itub (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, it's made in a particle collider.... only a few atoms at a time. And they decay so quickly. The cost is trivial, to say the least.It would seem to me that the cost is exhorbitant. The amount of the cost may be trivial.Mk5384 (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cost

message: ununseptium hasn't been made as of 2010.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.121.205.118 (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It has now. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: there aren't 118 discovered elements

message: I've translated the two Russian articles used as references in the main article. The short article clearly indicates that one of the names suggested is "московий" , for which the Cyrillic translates to Moskovium, not Moscowium. The Russians would not use an Anglicised form of the name of their City!
In addition, the longer article confirms the suggestion relating to "москA" (Moskva - Moscow) but also indicates the suggestion relating to Flerov i.e Flerovium. Although this name is loosely linked to element 102 it is unlikely banned by IUPAC naming rules.--Drjezza (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is surprising because this element is a noble gas and (except helium) the noble gases as a rule end in -on, not -ium. Georgia guy (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: But k is not proper Latin or English for the c (not "s") sound.  The name would be moscovium.  As in muscovite.  k should be a mid-aspirant, not a stop. -lysdexia 11:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be called teslium, in honor of Nikola Tesla. Just saying.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.215.146 (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Moscowium?

message: I think that since ununoctium is a featured article, it should be semi-protected to prevent vandalism from IP addresses. -Gcchemistry (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: The article claims that monatomic ununoctium would not be the gas with highest atomic/molecular weight (and thus, highest density), citing uranium hexafluoride as heavier. However, according to Uranium hexafluoride, that compound is solid at standard conditions. Does someone know which statement is correct? Also, what is the heaviest known gas at standard conditions, if not UF6 ?--Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: UF6 is solid under standard conditions, but people often think of it as a gas because it is volatile enough to be handled as a gas in certain industrial processes. If you really want something that is a gas at 1 atm and 298 K, the best I can think of is TeF6, which sublimes at -39 deg C and has a molar mass of 241, which is larger than that of radon. On a hot day, you could think of S2F10, which boils at 30 deg C and has a molar mass of 254, or S2F10O, which boils at 31 deg C and has a molar mass of 270. --Itub (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Itub for the detailed information! So Uuo 'would be the densest gas at standard conditions, since it has an atomic weigt of 292. (Apparently someone already changed the article accordingly.) I wonder if there is a theoretical limit on the density of gases, which might forbide Uuo to be gaseous...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a heavier gas! Tungsten hexafluoride has a boiling point of 17 °C and a molar mass of 297.83. I forgot to think about the transition metals when I was looking for heavy hexafluorides, but then, when looking for a lighter analogue of uranium hexafluoride, I remembered that uranium is chemically similar to tungsten (it used to be below tungsten in the periodic table until 1944 or so). --Itub (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, Itub. We are taking about elements and not combinations of elements.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.27.21 (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we (Itub and me) were talking about any chemical substance, read my original post. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heaviest gas? 

message: The "4×10^19 calcium ions" figure disagrees with the cited source, but the page is "protected" from edits. Can someone with edit authority check the citation and fix it, and then also check all the other citations?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.128.38.250 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed; thank you! Double sharp (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page has wrong information but is "protected" from edits 

message: There's a    at the top of the article. But this article will need to be moved when the proposed name becomes official. What can we do?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep it like that until the name is accepted, at which point an admin can move it? Double sharp (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And not having it move until the name is accepted (WP:EW vs WP:RS) is exactly why it's protected:) DMacks (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is ridiculous! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ununoctium. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://159.93.28.88/linkc/118/anno.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A quick calculation of the Goldhammer-Herzfeld (GH) ratio for 118, suggests it will be nonmetallic. The same ratio says astatine and 117 should be metallic.
The GH ratio, which is a simple measure of how metallic an element is, is equal to the cube of atomic radius divided by molar volume. More specifically, it's the ratio of A: the force holding an individual atom's valence electrons in place; to B: the forces on the same electrons from interactions between the atoms in the solid or liquid element. When the interatomic forces are greater than, or equal to, the atomic force, valence electron itinerancy is indicated and metallic behaviour is predicted (i.e. the cube of atomic radius divided by molar volume is ≥1.0). Otherwise nonmetallic behaviour is anticipated.  As the ratio is based on classical arguments it doesn't take into account funky relativistic effects. Even so it offers a first order rationalisation for the occurrence of metallic character amongst the elements. See:
:Edwards PP & Sienko MJ 1983, "On the occurrence of metallic character in the periodic table of the elements", Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 691–696, 
In 2013, on the basis of relativistic modelling, astatine was predicted to be a monatomic metal, with a face-centred cubic crystalline structure. See:
:Hermann A Hoffmann R & Ashcroft NW 2013, "Condensed astatine: Monatomic and metallic", Physical Review Letters, vol. 111, pp. 11604–1−11604-5, 
--- Sandbh (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metallic or nonmetallic? 

message: The half life of oganesson-294 is variously listed as 0.7 ms and 7 ms in both the article on oganesson and the isotopes of oganesson article.
However, the source paper from 2006 states 0.89 ms is the half-life.
Which value is it? Is there a new source for the half-life of this isotope that is something different than 0.89 ms?
And if so, is it 7 ms or 0.7 ms? It makes an order of magnitude of difference.
8.40.151.110 (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In the ref 9  summary, I read: "294118 (Eα=11.65±0.06 MeV, Tα=0.89+1.07−0.31 ms)". That's 0.89 then for us, I assume. I'll edit. -DePiep (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ,  As of 2015 it is determined as 0.7 ms per Oganessian and Rykaczewski. Double sharp (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So while I was reading Phys. Rev. C, you were watching The Big Bang Theory as a source... -DePiep (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Your source is primary, 10 years old, and the Tα is based on just three observations. Christian75 (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind progression in knowledge, but I do hope that there is a better source than powerpoint sheets. -DePiep (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The table is from a published source. I linked to the powerpoint sheet (which happens to be from the discoverers, so I imagine it carries a greater weight than otherwise) for convenience; it actually gives the original source just below the chart in the slide where it appears. Double sharp (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I finally tracked down the original again (the website changed): http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/PT.3.2880 (doi: 10.1063/PT.3.2880). Given that it is straight from the discoverers, I think it ought to be pretty reliable. Double sharp (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I was only responding to Christian75, who was dismissive about the older fully referenced source. I found that strange. -DePiep (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I completely understand his last two criticisms. The source is from 2006, and another Og atom was produced in 2012; with sample sizes of three changing to four, that could have a big impact! I should not be surprised if the half-life values of many of these superheavy nuclides keep fluctuating for some years or maybe even decades to come. I think the fact that it's a primary source is less of a big deal, though; Oganessian and his collaborators are of course very, very reliable, and their claims would be taken up readily into our current picture of the known northeastern frontier of the Segrè chart. (If it were Marinov, for example, we would have excellent reasons to be suspicious of the claims.) Double sharp (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isotopes of oganesson - discrepancy noted. 

message: Looks like the left one is the target and the right one is the U400 cyclotron. Double sharp (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures from the synthesis