Talk:Technetium/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"First synthesized" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect First synthesized. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"First synthesized" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect First synthesized. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Elon Musk tweet mentions "element 43" being used in SpaceX Starship.

The SpaceX Raptor rocket engine is apparently using potassium-7-pertechnatate liquid solution for corrosion protection: https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/ecr5o9/you_dont_hear_much_about_element_43/ 92.249.156.177 (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

tungsten and bismuth

I removed some edit that claimed tungsten and bismuth were unstable elements. While bismuth is technically unstable it is not special because it is the boundary of stablity. Tungsten on the other hand is quite stable. environmentalchemistry.com --metta, The Sunborn 16:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is technically not true about Tungsten http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten Naturally occurring tungsten consists of five isotopes whose half-lives are so long that they can be considered stable.

Tungsten was originally my edit. I actually received a VERY hurtful sabotaging accusation, from a Moderator no less. Not only was I just trying to be helpful, but the article on Tungsten, was quite accurate about its properties. What gives, anyway? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.233.230.223 (talk • contribs).

Bismuth isn't stable at all and no isotopes are stable. Porygon-Z (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It is technically correct that bismuth is not stable, but definitely over-the-top to assert "Bismuth isn't stable at all". It was discovered in 2003 that the isotope of bismuth then considered stable - Bi-209 - does decay, but with a half-life more than 10⁹ times the estimated age of the universe. It is very likely that similarly precise studies of other elements would reveal that isotopes described as "stable" are not absolutely stable (the lower bound on the half-life of the proton itself is only 10³² years). For all practical purposes Bi-209 can be considered stable. Longitude2 (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

question - tons or tonnes?

"only about 18,000 tons are estimated to exist" If that's an imperial or US Customary unit measurement, can it be clarified further as short or long tons, and the appropriate SI measurement added. If it's already metrics, can you use the word 'tonnes' to show that. As it is, it's ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.138.115 (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

If metric tons are meant, it should say "tonnes" if the article is written in British English and "metric tons" if it's written in American English. I agree that "tons" unexplained is ambiguous and should be avoided. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Removed altogether: "traces" should do. b/c the 18,000 was nor mentioned nor sourced in the article body, and reference pages do not mention it either. -DePiep (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Isotope technetium-97

In this page, it is said that technetium-98 has a longer half-life, but in the page isotopes of technetium, it stated that technetium-97 has a longer half-life. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.8.157 (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This is no longer the case. -DePiep (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

97Tc stable issue

>> none are stable other than the fully ionized state of 97Tc. This is a strange claim whose support by citation [4] is not clear to me. Could a knowledgeable person please validate and elaborate on this? 2601:647:4200:CD91:ADFD:B53E:618C:800 (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I cannot find it in there either. The reason behind it, though, is that the decay energy going from ⁹⁷Tc to ⁹⁷Mo is so small that positron emission is energetically impossible. This leaves only electron capture as a possible decay mode, so when the atom is fully ionised, it has no way to decay. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

So... this would theoretically be true, in a fully-ionized high-temperature plasma, but it's never been observed, and the ionization energy would likely be well into the GJ/mol range. Do I have that correct?

If so, I think it should be removed.

Also, the reference used for it doesn't mention Tc anywhere. ES2 (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it OR because it's a straightforward conclusion from NUBASE and WP:CALC. NUBASE only lists electron capture as a decay mode and this can be verified by calculating the decay energy, and electron capture is only possible when there are electrons to capture, which is obviously not the case in fully ionized atoms.

However, since it's not in ref 4 or easily verifiable elsewhere (no source I can find directly describes it), I would suggest removing it from the lead and adding it to the isotopes section. Since this claim is not directly verified but rather a straightforward conclusion from other sources, and we don't deal with fully ionized Tc every day (the few applications of Tc use neutral ⁹⁹Tc or ^99mTc AFAIK), it's too much weight for a weakly sourced statement as is. Removing it from the article altogether is also a possibility (I would not oppose that), but it's more noteworthy for Tc than for other elements that also have stable isotopes, so there's a (fair) argument to keep it as well. ComplexRational (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems a little more than a "calculation" to me. For example, is it obvious that the fully ionized element can't capture free electrons, and decay that way? It's an interesting bit of trivia but I think it needs a source. --Trovatore (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I guess it could, but since that involves particles outside the system, I don't think that would make it not count as "stable". Otherwise, isn't ¹H unstable because it can capture a proton and go through the proton-proton chain reaction?

Although that makes me wonder about ⁷Be. As an electron capturer produced in Big Bang nucleosynthesis, it couldn't really capture its own electrons until recombination four hundred thousand years later. But the nucleus could surely capture a passing free electron... Double sharp (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

First ionization energy

According to , the first ionization energy of technetium is 7.11938 eV, or around 686.9 kJ/mol. SVG-image-maker (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)