Talk:Isotopes of mercury

Latest comment: 2 months ago by 129.104.241.231 in topic The atomic masses of 212-216Hg are certainly incorrect
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isotopes of mercury. 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:

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) 14:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Neutron–proton ratio of 204Hg

edit

It should be noted in the chart that 204Hg has the highest N/Z ratio of any known stable isotope at 1.55 (mentioned in the Wikipedia article Neutron–proton ratio). 216Po has even higher N/Z ratio than 204Hg, but it is very unstable with respect to alpha decay, with a half-life of only 145 ms. 2A04:CEC0:11CD:6609:1C53:ACAC:ED4F:9F39 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

If we're counting unstable isotopes, then probably a better comparison is 238U at 1.59. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Possible alpha decay of several isotopes of mercury

edit

203Hg through 206Hg are the only alpha-stable isotopes of mercury.

According to [1], 192Hg (N = 112) and 194Hg (N = 114) should respectively have a partial alpha decay half-life of at least 1011 years and 1018 years. Note that the alpha decay energy of 194Hg is 2.70 MeV, which is lower than 3.27 MeV of its alpha product 190Pt and 2.82 MeV of its double alpha product 186Os. Also 192Hg has lower alpha decay energy than its daughter 188Pt (3.38 MeV vs. 4.01 MeV).

According to [2], 196Hg should have an alpha decay half-life at the order of 1032 years. Note that the alpha decay energy is 2.038 MeV, which is lower than 2.4239 MeV of its alpha product 192Pt and 2.1432 MeV of its double alpha product 188Os.

The alpha decay energy of 207Hg is only 984.3 keV, so alpha decay may be possible but with a very long partial half-life beyond imagination.

According to the link above, 208Hg (decay energy = 2.4002 MeV), 210Hg and 212Hg should respectively have an alpha decay half-life at the order of 1022 years, 1026 years and 1027 years. The alpha decay partial half-life of 212Hg is 41 orders of magnitude longer than that of 212Po despite having an energy 36.0786 MeV higher. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The atomic masses of 212-216Hg are certainly incorrect

edit

According to the current data, are you trying to tell me that the beta decay energy of 216Hg is 170 MeV? 129.104.241.231 (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done All the masses are corrected with values from AME2020 II. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 07:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks a lot! 129.104.241.231 (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply