Talk:Isotopes of oganesson

References

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

All data is theoretical?

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)[reply]

Target-projectile combinations table

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)[reply]

@Nergaal: ^ Kaldari (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation in the article

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)[reply]

Og-297

If it a successful reaction, why isn't a confirmed isotope? Porygon-Z 19:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

@Porygon-Z474: 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)[reply]

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]

²⁹⁵Og

According to ptable, oganesson apparently has two isotopes. Tennessine and other transactinides also have undiscovered isotopes. hypersilly ^(talk) 03:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The report of ²⁹⁵Og was unconfirmed and not supported by subsequent publications. And in general, we don't list undiscovered isotopes in articles, because different sources propose different half-lives and decay modes and there's no reason to favor one set of predictions over any other. ^Complex/_Rational 07:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm i guess your right! hypersilly ^(talk) 10:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also, "Not directly synthesized, occurs in decay chain of ²⁹⁹Ubn; unconfirmed" on the ptable isotope section hypersilly ^(talk) 10:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]