Talk:Isotopes of oganesson

message: How can two things published in 2003 be references for the details of an element discovered in 2006?  Surely the paper(s) cited in the Ununoctium are the references for this article? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited mass was calculated from systematic trends by Audi et al. It may be some time until experimental results reach the accuracy of what can be theoretically derived. Femto 11:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Surely not all as the half-life is stated without a '#'. So at least that data is accurate... the opening paragraph needs to be changed accordingly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.63.144 (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: All data is theoretical?

message: The "Attempt result" column of the Target-projectile combinations table doesn't look right. Specifically, I would expect 294Uuo to be "successful" and 297Uuo to be "failure to date" (judging by the contents of the rest of the article), but they seem to be reversed. Kaldari (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ^ Kaldari (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically the name is correct but the labeling was off. Nuclear_reaction#Compound_nuclear_reactions. You form a metastable "compound nucleus" which releases some of its extra energy by "boiling" off some neutrons. In this case goes to 297*, boils off 3n and is left with 294.  Nergaal (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Target-projectile combinations table 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Isotopes of oganesson. 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
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: User:65.33.153.16 added the following to this page, apparently in response to my reversion of his edit:
"This adds up to 293 yet you claim it to be 297 and yet you declare having discovered 294. I suggest you check your sources."
I felt the talk page was a more appropriate place for this comment.
As for my response... please note that the mention of Og-293 is scripted to not actually appear on the page; this is because it was retracted after it was discovered that Victor Ninov had fabricated the data. Magic9mushroom (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Conversation in the article

message: If it a successful reaction, why isn't a confirmed isotope? Porygon-Z 19:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As explained in the article (and oganesson), 297Og is the excited compound nucleus formed through fusion that de-excites by emitting energy and three neutrons; thus, the isotope 294Og is synthesized instead of 297Og. ComplexRational (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I get it so there are theoretically more isotopes, its just they de-excites into them. Wait, isn't that called part a decay chain? Porygon-Z 11:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not exactly part of a decay chain. The isotope 297Og is never actually produced, as the excited system with 297 nucleons promptly (less than 10-12 seconds) emits three neutrons to form 294Og - see compound nucleus and its linked articles for more information. ComplexRational (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Og-297