Talk:Isotopes of erbium

Lose the column "decay energy"

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isotopes of erbium. 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.

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) 14:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Possible alpha decay of several isotopes of erbium

According to [1], several isotopes of erbium should have a partial alpha decay half-life at the order of:

¹⁴⁹Er (N = 81): 10¹⁹ years;

¹⁵⁰Er (N = 82): 10¹⁶ years;

¹⁵¹Er (N = 83): 10⁵ years;

¹⁵⁷Er (N = 89): 10⁶ years;

¹⁵⁸Er (N = 90): 10¹¹ years (note that the alpha decay energy is only 2.67 MeV, which is lower than 2.95 MeV of its alpha product ¹⁵⁴Dy and 2.81 MeV of its double alpha product ¹⁵⁰Gd, and not much higher then 2.53 MeV of its triple alpha product ¹⁴⁶Sm), meaning that the alpha-decay probability is only at the order of 10^-13%.

Among the 26 isomers of erbium, only 4 show decay mode other than isomer transition?

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)

Possible double beta decay of ¹⁶⁴Er

¹⁶⁴Er has a theoretical double beta decay energy of 23.723 keV, which is lowest double beta decay energy I can recall. Assuming that logT^2β = A logQ^2β + B and using the trend shown in [2], 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: [3] 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)

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)

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)

Erbium-143

Should the isotope tables include nuclei that are listed as discovered in NUBASE2020, but are reported only in non-peer-reviewed publications? According to the FRIB Discovery of Nuclides Project, ¹⁴³Er appears in three conference proceedings, but in no peer-reviewed publication. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I personally see NUBASE2020 as good enough. It is published in a journal, after all. Double sharp (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)