Talk:Isotopes of francium

Stability

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If elements after lead are gradually losing stability, then why are thorium and uranium suddenly so stable(relative for such big bulky nuclei)? and how can CURIUM have such a long half life-almost primordial?32ieww (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@32ieww: It's not so simple. Even-numbered elements are generally stabler than odd-numbered elements (even beyond lead), and there is the concept of magic numbers and nucleon shells (there's a reason why technetium is unstable but everything immediately around it is).--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uranium has a semi-closed shell (ending a proton orbital). Also it's probably not best to extrapolate from the Po-Ac region; those elements are less stable than one would expect purely from the liquid drop model, because they are just above the "energy well" at Pb and Bi and don't have much of a barrier to falling down the well. The elements from Th to Lr have the stability that you would expect. From Rf onwards the elements are more stable than the liquid drop model predicts, because the shell effects protect the nuclei effectively from spontaneous fission. When we are far from the closed or semi-closed shells (e.g. N = 162 or 184), such as at N = 170, the nuclei tend to undergo SF instead of alpha decay (e.g. ²⁸⁰Ds, ²⁸¹Rg, ²⁸²Cn, ²⁸³Nh, ²⁸⁴Fl; the even ones undergo quick SF, while the odd ones, though protected by the odd proton which hinders SF, still have a prominent SF branch for ²⁸¹Rg). Double sharp (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isotopes of francium. 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)

Fr-221: natural?

This article says Fr-221 is present naturally as a daughter of Np-237. However, Np-237 is considered extinct (over 1000 half-lives have elapsed since the Earth's formation; it is ludicrously unlikely that even one atom persists) and therefore should not be generating any decay products in the modern era (and indeed, the other isotopes in the 4n+1 decay chain are not marked as naturally existent).

Am I missing something? I suppose spontaneous fission in a thorium ore and subsequent neutron capture by Th-232 would naturally produce a miniscule quantity of radiogenic 4n+1 nuclides (Th-233 -> Pa-233 -> U-233 -> Th-229 -> Ra-225 -> Ac-225 -> Fr-221 -> At-217 -> Bi-213 -> Po-213 -> Pb-209 -> Bi-209), but that's not the etiology claimed in this article and if that is deemed significant (we'd need a source for that) it would apply to all of the isotopes listed and not just Fr-221.

If no-one objects, I'll remove the mention of natural Fr-221 to fit with the rest of the extinct 4n+1 chain. Magic9mushroom (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Magic9mushroom: It is from neutron capture by natural uranium, forming ²³⁷U (knockout) which then beta decays to ²³⁷Np and travels down that path. If thorium is also present, it can similarly capture a neutron and form ²³³Th, as you say. In concentrated pitchblende deposits from the Congo ²³⁷Np occurs in high enough amounts (though still tiny traces) that already in 1952 (paper) its daughters ²³³U, ²²⁹Th, and ²²⁵Ac could be identified. ²²¹Fr is the daughter of ²²⁵Ac and hence must also be present, but I don't know of any source that specifically mentions having detected it – which would be no mean feat, given its minuscule half-life. For this reason I am equally uncertain about whether it should be included, but I can see arguments on both sides. What do you think? ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Well, now, that's a can of worms. I suppose, given that we list cosmogenic isotopes as "trace", and that's also natural transmutation, that the products of transmutation in actinide ores should be mentioned. That would include, what? Np-237, Th-233, the rest of the 4n+1 chain descending from those, and Pu-239? The complicating factor in the cases of Po/At/Rn/Fr/Ra/Ac is that since every isotope of those is listed as "trace", it might mislead people into thinking the "traces" are remotely similar instead of differing by a factor of >10 billion (in the case of Np it's no issue because Np-237 is the only natural isotope, and in the case of Pu Pu-238 from β−β− decay of U-238 is also miniscule). Certainly, the note should be different than the ones in the main decay chains; I'm thinking something along the lines of "Product of transmutation in actinide ores".

Thoughts on the balancing act between technical accuracy and potential for misunderstanding? Other possible solutions? Magic9mushroom (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Magic9mushroom: I would think that we still have to call these trace radioisotopes, albeit with a note about it. A bright line between products of the three extant decay chains and those of the ²³⁷Np series seems unworkable given that many of the rare side-chain products of the former would be just as rare as the latter: I'm thinking of cases like ²¹⁹At, ²¹⁸Rn, ²⁰⁶Hg, and suchlike. At the most, therefore, I think we should just leave it to the notes to explain the origin of each trace radioisotope. Double sharp (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

²²¹Fr and ²²¹Rn are the lightest known nuclide to undergo cluster decay

According to Cluster decay#Experiments, ²²¹Fr and ²²¹Rn are the nuclides with the lowest mass number that are known to undergo cluster decay (the page Isotopes of barium says that ¹¹⁴Ba is predicted to undergo cluster decay, but this is not observed). So I think this "lightest nuclide" property should be noted for one of ²²¹Fr and ²²¹Rn or both of them in the table of isotopes, like what has been done for ²⁴²Cm. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Possible alpha decay of ²²²Fr

Although not listed in [1], ²²²Fr should have an alpha decay partial half-life at the order of several days judging from the trend and the theoretical decay energy (222.017552 - 218.008694 - 4.002603254130)×931.4941 MeV = 5.8263 MeV. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Update the atomic masses per NUBASE2020?

As I said here, NUBASE2020 gives an atomic mass of 222.0175825(75) for ²²²Fr, which deviates significantly from the current value 222.017552(23). Does it worth do change the value? 129.104.65.10 (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

By the way, it seems that ²²²Rn and ²²²Fr have the smallest known energy difference difference between an even-even nuclides and an odd-odd one that are isobars. Even if we allow odd-mass isobaric pairs, the only isobars with possibly smaller energy differences are ¹⁶³Dy/¹⁶³Ho, ¹⁸⁷Re/¹⁸⁷Re, and ²⁴³Am/²⁴³Cm. 129.104.241.35 (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)