Talk:Unbinilium

Most stable isotope

Currently, the infobox says mass number=320 for the most stable isotope. However, that one is not listed in the infobox, nor mentioned in the text. ³⁰²Ubn is in text, but not in infobox. Unbiunium has similar issue. Can someone check these? -DePiep (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Fricke (the source) predicts 320 without a half-life, same for elements 119 and 121. The information for nuclear properties is annoyingly scarce, and I decided to take whatever scraps I could find even if they did not always come accompanied by details. Double sharp (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

OK for me. Shouldn't they be added to the infobox (isotopes list), and be present in body text? BTW, the numbers mentioned are: E119: mn=315, E120: mn=320, E121: mn=320 (so different from what you wrote). E121 has source Amador, not Fricke. -DePiep (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't remember the details well enough, but the main point is correct. The trouble with adding them to the infobox is that without half-lives it would not say anything new – and likewise there is not really much to say in the body about it either. I guess I could add a sentence cited to the respective sources again that so-and-so predicts that 315 or 320 is the most stable isotope. Double sharp (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I have since changed this to include the possibly synthesised ²⁹⁹120, whose surprisingly long observed half-life might be explained by the formation of a high-spin isomer and consequently hindered alpha decay of ²⁹⁹120 and ²⁹⁵Og. Double sharp (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

As it turns out, that was probably a random sequence of events... Double sharp (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect Statement

This statement is incorrect - I don't know what the author was intending to say... No elements with atomic numbers above 82 (after lead) have stable isotopes 66.75.233.243 (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

What might be the intended correct statement is...

No elements with atomic numbers above 92 (after uranium) have stable isotopes 66.75.233.243 (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

82 is the correct one. Elements with atomic numbers 83~92 (bismuth to uranium) all doesn't have any stable isotopes. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Oasium

I believe that this element, element 120, should be known as Oasium if it has a higher half-life than the other superheavy elements, especially if it has a super high half life, because it would be a sort-of oasis. It would be interesting. From Rushpedia, the free stupid goofball (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

If and when element 120 is discovered and confirmed, the discoverers will propose a name for it. We do not publish original thoughts and ideas that are not substantiated by reliable sources. ^Complex/_Rational 19:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I know that, but it'd just be cool. It was just a little thought. From Rushpedia, the free stupid goofball (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Callback to this. When you linked to Wikipedia:No original research despite the fact that I clearly stated that it was my idea for its name, not the factual name of the element.
From Rushpedia, the free stupid goofball (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Scientists Have Discovered the Pathway to Element 120—the Holy Grail of Chemistry

I'm not sure if this reiterate this subject or not, but here is an article from Popular Mechanics at Scientists Have Discovered the Pathway to Element 120—the Holy Grail of Chemistry. Rjluna2 (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't say anything of substance that shouldn't already be in the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)