Talk:Isotopes of osmium

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Isotopes of osmium. 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article Cook et al. (2014) questions the 1.12(23)×1013 years half-life of 184Os in Peters et al. (2014), the latter being the only up-to-now article to give this value. Instead, it proposes a half-life of 2.20(61)×1013 years (the value is still tentative and depends heavily on the measurement whose precision is yet a problem to be solved). A value of (3.38±2.13)×1013 years was proposed later in Cook et al. (2018). Please note that NUBASE2020 uses the 1.12(23)×1013 years value by citing Peters et al. (2014) (one can see this by entering 2014Pe22 in ). Personally I found the value (3.38±2.13)×1013 years more reliable despite its large uncertainty. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in the process of updating to NUBASE2020; this is usually an average or the most accurate value. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Do not modify your own comments after they have been replied to. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half-life of <sup>184</sup>Os may still in dispute 

message: According to this article, 187Os may have reasonable alpha decay half-life to have its decay observed and measured. 149Sm may be the only observationally stable nuclide to share this property (see here; 1020 years for 176Hf and 1022 years for 145Nd and 177Hf may also have some chance but I won't bet it). It's hard to believe that their alpha decays have not been observed: both of the theoretical half-lives are shorter than the half-life of 209Bi (and perhaps also 151Eu). 2A04:CEC0:C01E:FC3C:249D:DDD3:9844:468E (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: For the 209Bi experiment, the low-temperature scintillating bolometers were made out of a Bi compound (Bi4Ge3O12), so there was no need to dope some other compound with Bi (as there was a need to do doping with 148Sm to detect its alpha). Maybe this is one reason? Double sharp (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Cristiano Toàn (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible alpha decay of <sup>187</sup>Os 

message: The currently cited source says 97(+97−32) μs but https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.072502 ("Discovery of New Isotopes 160Os and 156W: Revealing Enhanced Stability of the N=82 Shell Closure on the Neutron-Deficient Side", Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 072502) says 201(+58−37) μs. These ranges do overlap, so perhaps more experimental data over time will resolve it? I guess no edit to the article is needed at this time, but I thought it might be worth dropping this citation on the talk page just in case. Kingdon (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half life of <sup>160</sup>Os