Talk:Isotopes of plutonium

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elements: Isotopes Low‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Isotope Taskforce.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Isotopes of plutonium. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20101119071142/http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jnst/41/4/448/_pdf to http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jnst/41/4/448/_pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923135135/http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/amdc/nubase/Nubase2003.pdf to http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/amdc/nubase/Nubase2003.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923135135/http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/amdc/nubase/Nubase2003.pdf to http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/amdc/nubase/Nubase2003.pdf

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) 14:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that 236Pu is listed as undergoing double beta plus decay, but on another page Double beta decay it is not listed as being capable of doing so. I suggest removing double beta plus decay from the list of decay modes for 236Pu. 2001:8003:641A:1200:4C:DA93:35BB:AF8F (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to NUBASE2020, double decay decay of ²³⁶Pu is an energetically favorable transition. However, it has never been experimentally observed or reported in the literature. I have removed it accordingly. ^Complex/_Rational 14:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: IIRC there are a lot of never-seen double-betas on the isotope articles. Isotopes of curium has them too. They might just be marked whenever they are energetically possible. Double sharp (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind removing them because it's a similar case to observationally stable nuclides. Namely, I don't think we should treat decay modes that are possible but not observed the same way as known decay modes, just as we don't treat observationally stable nuclides the same way as known primordial radionuclides. Perhaps endnotes such as "Theoretically also capable of β⁺β⁺ decay to ²³⁶U" ought to suffice. ^Complex/_Rational 20:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: I agree. Double sharp (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

²⁴³Pu has only slightly higher alpha-decay energy than ²⁴⁴Pu (4.758 MeV vs 4.665 MeV), so its alpha-decay half-life should be at the order of 10⁷ years, or alpha-decay probability be at the order of 10^-10%.

As for ²⁴⁶Pu, its alpha partial half-life is calculated as 2×10¹¹ years. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need someone to access the paper which describes this new isotope and calculate the atomic mass using whatever mass is quoted for ²²³U. The study finds ΔL = 2 for the alpha decay, but is there a spin assigned to the new isotope? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the article and it neither quotes a mass for ²²³U nor provides a detailed decay scheme. It gives only one alpha decay energy for ²²⁷Pu and three for ²²³U, which all lead to the same cascade from ²¹⁹Th, so I'm not sure if the mass can be calculated from the given information. ^Complex/_Rational 15:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]