Talk:Unbiunium

I changed the the rating to stub, as "5" is not a rating. Beast of traal T C 22:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Beast of traal

Unbiunium's electron configuration will not be [2, 8, 18, 32, 33, 18, 8, 2], it will be [2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 9, 2]. That is clearly wrong. 86.138.142.213 (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

:You kind of have a point! As you see, in lanthanum, actinium, and thorium, the d-shell has the electrons even though the Aufbau principle predicted those electrons to go to the f-shell. Similarly, instead of g-shell electrons advancing to the f-shell, it further advances into the d-shell. Tachyon the Comic Creator (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

::121 probably goes further in the same way as Lr, because relativity stabilises one of the p-shells: just like Lr has 7p instead of 6d, so 121 should have 8p instead of 5g, 6f, or even 7d. Double sharp (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it is the electron configuration of 5g^1 that is wrong. Analogous to Lanthanum and Actinium, one electron in the d-block occurs first, and then the f-block starts. I think the same thing might occur here, where one 7d^1 electron occurs first, before the g-block (in fact I believe one d electron fills, then one f electron, then the g-block, then the rest of the f-block, then the rest of the d-block.) 99.175.101.245 (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

:It'll actually probably be [2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 8, 3]. Double sharp (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It is probably possible for there to be >120 protons, but when there are 120 electrons, extra electrons probably wouldn't orbit causing the atom to stay as an ion.

207.6.81.95 (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Mr. Anonymous

Pm + Nd=Ubu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.123.136 (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

:Not likely at all. The probability of fusion decreases very quickly as the projectile grows in size relative to the target. Double sharp (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, E121 and E122 are the last elements for which we have predictions. Unfortunately, they are basically limited to: 1st IE, chemically like the element above them (Ac and Th respectively), and electron configurations relativistically stabilized 8p orbitals (though the dⁿs² electron configurations of Ac and Th should be the first excited states of E121 and E122), and electron affinity for E121 (La: 0.33 eV, Ac: 0.35 eV, E121: 0.57 eV). Nothing like the wealth of predictions you can find for E119 and E120.

This list contains refs for both E121 and E122.

• http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/109/10/10.1063/1.476995 (121)
• http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/51/2/10.1063/1.1672080 (and the next few superactinides' EC's; the main point is the relativistic stabilization of 8p)
• http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/53/6/10.1063/1.1674338 (showing that 8s and then 7d get stabilized, sacrificing the 5g one would expect)
• http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0953-4075/35/7/307/meta;jsessionid=FE348596ABCF1477381FE1BA5F4FC071.c1 (122)
• http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375947415001463 (very recent article, going to 121 and 122: can anyone access it? The abstract promises some chemistry, so finally we may have enough for an article).
• [http://www.researchgate.net/publication/279634737_Electronic_structure_theory_of_the_superheavy_elements Don't worry, I got it] (thanks R8R)! Double sharp (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• https://books.google.com.ru/books?id=K2y5BgAAQBAJ (despite the title, contains also a brief discussion of the energy levels of 121 and 122).

I also note that the most common names for these two elements, besides of course "element 121" and "element 122", are in fact "eka-actinium" and "eka-thorium": you can find these in many of the papers I linked above. So, proof for those who insist that eka-Ac and eka-Th must be E141 and E142 (although if one thinks that way, one probably hasn't seen Fricke's paper, so the insistence would be for E139 and E140). Double sharp (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's another one:

• http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009261416306984

There may soon be enough for an article, but I don't think the time has come quite yet. Double sharp (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

:BTW, the predicted atomic weight is not given in Fricke, but is given in the source I linked immediately above (320 amu). Double sharp (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1609/1609.05495.pdf
• https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.0498.pdf
• https://books.google.com/books?id=lUC7CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA292&lpg=PA292&dq=254Es+%2B+50Ti&source=bl&ots=gLGEumPWXm&sig=XGWl84tiTJkbpZpspl0IYOCYLto&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigiPfXqcnTAhWCr48KHc8cChUQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=254Es%20%2B%2050Ti&f=false
• http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/36/115/36115264.pdf
• http://inspirehep.net/record/1221632/files/jpconf13_413_012002.pdf
• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/K_Santhosh/publications

Double sharp (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Another one: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00894-021-04861-7 Double sharp (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

{{Talk:Unbiunium/GA1}}

22:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI {{lt|Infobox unbiunium isotopes}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)