Talk:Flerovium

Zintl anions?

Are there any predictions so far about Flerovium's (in)ability to form anions?

It would be interesting to study the possibility of anion formation in elements like Nh, Fl, Mc, Lv and Ts, and in case that anions can be formed, whether they act similarly to their lighter homologues. Since most Zintl-type anions follow the classical octet rule, and since the "full" electron shell of Og is expected to be far less stable than that of its lighter homologues, anions of the elements 113-117 may not neccessarily follow this principle. On the other hand, Ts^- and Lv^2- are predicted to exist with their expected stability roughly following group trends. McH₃ and Mc₅^- (analogues of ammonia and pentazolide) seem to be possible as well. By contrast, FlH₄ is expected to be extremely unstable, much more so than PbH₄. But what about e.g. Fl^4- or Fl₄^4-? Do relativistic effects move the position of the Zintl line from element 113/114 to the right? Or is there a "new chemistry" appearing with anions like monomeric Nh^- adopting the electronic structure of Fl instead of Og?

(I have summed up information about predictions cited in other Wikipedia articles about these elements. I don't expect any satisfying answers to my questions in the second text block, as most of them will still be insufficiently studied to give really good answers. They are only there to explain my motive for asking about Zintl anions of Fl. I mean, anions of superheavy elements are no less interesting than cations, so I ask if there are any studies about Fl (and also Cp, Nh, Mc) occurring in negative oxidation states.) --2003:E0:7F07:54B5:B536:BD88:CD75:3D8E (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. We also don't engage in speculation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Why exactly is this unscientific speculation? It is just a summary of theoretical calculations which have been cited in various Wikipedia articles. Besides, Nh- is expected to be possible. See the article on Nihonium. --93.195.28.183 (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

We need an academic source abut this specific prediction. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hg is probably the best guide we have for how Fl should behave. But extending it to clusters is still OR. Double sharp (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Flerovium-290

A paper published in 2023 seems to disfavor an interpretation of an empirical result which attributes a 1999 decay chain to ²⁹⁰Fl:

Såmark-Roth, A.; Cox, D. M.; Rudolph, D.; Sarmiento, L. G.; Albertsson, M.; Carlsson, B. G.; Egido, J. L.; Golubev, P.; Heery, J.; Yakushev, A.; Åberg, S.; Albers, H. M.; Block, M.; Brand, H.; Calverley, T.; Cantemir, R.; Clark, R. M.; Düllmann, Ch. E.; Eberth, J.; Fahlander, C.; Forsberg, U.; Gates, J. M.; Giacoppo, F.; Götz, M.; Götz, S.; Herzberg, R.-D.; Hrabar, Y.; Jäger, E.; Judson, D.; Khuyagbaatar, J.; Kindler, B.; Kojouharov, I.; Kratz, J. V.; Krier, J.; Kurz, N.; Lens, L.; Ljungberg, J.; Lommel, B.; Louko, J.; Meyer, C.-C.; Mistry, A.; Mokry, C.; Papadakis, P.; Parr, E.; Pore, J. L.; Ragnarsson, I.; Runke, J.; Schädel, M.; Schaffner, H.; Schausten, B.; Shaughnessy, D. A.; Thörle-Pospiech, P.; Trautmann, N.; Uusitalo, J. (6 February 2023). "Spectroscopy along flerovium decay chains. III. Details on experiment, analysis, Cn 282 , and spontaneous fission branches". Physical Review C. 107 (2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.024301.

The isotope is also marked as undiscovered in the Discovery of Nuclides Project. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this about chain 17 from a 2022 study (pub. 2023)? Double sharp (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Symbol

I seem to remember seeing the symbol Fv used for this element so as to avoid confusion with fluorine. Was I imagining that?Hieronymus Illinensis (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

IIRC it was proposed but replaced by Fl before the latter was officially adopted. ^Complex/_Rational 23:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

"Experimental chemistry" section is not encyclopedic

The current section named "Experimental chemistry" has multiple paragraphs based on an unavailable and possibly self-published PDF from 2009 with conclusions that subsequent work contradicts. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The section is written as a (recent) historical review, experiment by experiment, rather than as a summary of the knowledge of Flerovium chemistry. The topic warrants 2 or 3 sentences since mostly the results are inconclusive. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, here is a working link to the PDF in question: it's a lab report from the FLNR. But from 2008, so rather out of date indeed. Double sharp (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)