Jump to content

Talk:Einsteinium/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Talk

Why is it claimed to be both the seventh trans-uranic element and the seventh actinoid ? That doesn't look right. It looks like it should be the eleventh actinoid.Eregli bob (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Natural occurance

Considering that Einsteinium and Fermium were both created in the explosion of a thermonuclear bomb, and that supernovae are far more powerful than any bomb that has ever been created, wouldn't it make sense that these elements may exist in trace amounts in supernova remnants? --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 19:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Only for a very short while (on cosmic scales). Physchim62 (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Isotopes produced in thermonuclear explosions

Es-254 (& Fm-254) are not produced in thermonuclear explosions since the beta decay chain ends at Cf-254, which does not undergo beta decay (it decays by spontaneous fission or, rarely, by alpha decay). (Similarly, Fm-253 is not produced either since Es-253 never decays by beta decay.) 69.72.27.249 (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The article does not say it is produced, upon a brief look. Materialscientist (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
     In the History section it states, "Some 238U atoms, however, could absorb another amount of
     neutrons, most likely 16 or 17, resulting in the 254Es and 255Es isotopes, respectively."
     (The following sentence says, "...also resulted in the 253Fm...".)
     69.72.27.156 (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Missed that. Corrected. Thank you indeed. Materialscientist (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Einsteinium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FREYWA 02:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is my first review...I have no idea of what to expect. But still, you can leave comments and I will address them. Check out my peer review as well. Good luck, editors. FREYWA 02:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Ready to review.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
     Done
    You have some specifics in mind? Nergaal (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
     Done
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    90 sources. Real good.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    One per paragraph - even better then the rule of thumb (one per section).
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Per the guidelines, this has everything.
    B. Focused:
    Again, some specifics would be helpful. Nergaal (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    The 4th criterion is equivalent to not looking like anything. And this article does.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Obviously.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    With something dealing with US confidential, there is no question on the pictures.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Specifically, for section 1A, in the section on organomettalic compounds it says, "So experiments, have been performed..." and the comma there is something I want you to fix. For section 3B the section on the synthesis in nuclear explosions is a wall and looks intimidating. FREYWA 08:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Worked a bit on both. Nergaal (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hold it - where is the a parameter for EsOCl (look at Chemical compounds → Halides → the last paragraph)? The prose is really good. Remove that "a = " and I will list einsteinium as a good article soon. I have to remove the a parameter myself. Then it will be a good article. FREYWA 08:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Applications

Einsteinium was actually used for something! The Surveyor 5, 6, & 7 lunar landers carried an instrument that analyzed the chemical composition of the moon by measuring the energy of alpha particles from Cm-242 after they bounced off the lunar surface. Es-254 was "placed near the detectors as an energy marker" (Science vol. 158 p. 635). 69.72.27.39 (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Added. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, then cite it and include it! FREYWA 08:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If its actually used for something , why does it say that it's not?

Athenium

Why is "Athenium" an alternate name? -- Beland (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added information about that name to the lead. Double sharp (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Removed. There is no evidence it is used, or was used more than a few times. The corresponding text in [1] is vague and is referenced by an unreliable source. If properly sourced, this might be considered for the "History" section, but not for the first line of the lead. Materialscientist (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The name "athenium" was actually added some months ago, and I only added material from elements.vanderkrogt.net to state the origin of the name. However, I agree that it should not be in the lead. Double sharp (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2012‎ (UTC)


Elementium (El)

Renamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.200.234.243 (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No Natural Isotopes?

This article states that no isotopes of Einsteinuim occur in nature. However, in the Isotopes section of Californium's infobox, it show 253Cf as occuring in trace amounts in nature, presumable due to random transmutation/multiple neutron capture. However, several sources confirm that this isotope beta minus decays ~99.69% of the time into 253Es. Wouldn't this count as naturally-occuring Einsteinium?

Jacob S-589 (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I asked this already in WikiProject_Elements last year, but didn't get a definite answer, unfortunately... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Presumably the experiment that detected the 253Cf couldn't detect the 253Es for some reason. Even though we all know it must be there somewhere, I think we should leave it as (syn) for now. Double sharp (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Einsteinium. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Sourceformat creep since GA

Since this article went GA (in 2011, see above), the sources need a new check. Some papers are not citetemplate-covered, and a dozen or so {{sfn}}s are created by some construct. -DePiep (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

How to edit infobox?

I wanted to edit the infobox, but all i could see was: {{infobox einsteinium}}
How can I edit it? By the way, @Materialscientist: do you remember me? —usernamekiran (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Einsteinium. 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:

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) 08:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Einstein photo?

Does anyone else think this seems kinda out-of-place? The element wasn't discovered by Einstein or anything, and it seems to have been an arbitrary relationship based on Einstein being a great physicist after whom a bunch of other scientists decided to name it. If the article had a dearth of images it would make more sense, but that isn't really the case. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Well, I'd say getting a chemical element named after a scientist is a very rare honour and it merits the scientist himself being pictured. Furthermore, most of the elements named after scientists have not been and mostly cannot currently be produced in visible quantities (Fm, Md, No, Lr, Rf, Sg, Bh, Mt, Rg, Cn, Fl, Og), and then a picture of the namesake is really the best we can do; it then seems somewhat inconsistent to me to not give the pictures for Cm and Es. Double sharp (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with @Double sharp:. If it was the main picture it would be out of place, but this is not the case and the image appears in an appropriate position in the article. Polyamorph (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Plus people wanna see what the actual pure elements look like as well. Porygon-Z 15:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

Last element to have a use?

Am I wrong? Does Fermium have a use? Please clarify! Porygon-Z 15:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

YES, YOU ARE!! Haven't U seen the Disney serie "Little Einsteins"? If you watch the episode number 129 you will know the solution!! frickinn dudum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.108.184 (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Even if that is so, we don't discuss fictional references to elements, as that would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE and possibly factually inaccurate. In reference to the original question, californium is actually the last element to have any uses outside basic scientific research, while einsteinium is the last element that has been produced in macroscopic quantities. ComplexRational (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
First of all, Little Einsteins aren't accurate. Second of all, What about Einsteinium being used in calibrators. Is that not considered a use? And besides, Little einsteins only has 69 episodes according to Wikipedia. If you would like to add more, go ahead. Porygon-Z (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by mav 09:06, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC). Elementbox converted 11:54, 17 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 07:47, 14 July 2005). 14 July 2005

Reverted?

Why was my edit on Einsteinium reverted? I just added new /good information. Please clarify! Porygon-Z (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

We had a discussion on this before. While einsteinium does have uses, they are limited to basic scientific research and specialized applications within. The article clearly indicated that before your edits, so a change from "almost none" to "some" does not accurately reflect the sources. Some of these changes also created sentences that were self-contradictory: for example, one of your edits left a sentence suggesting that einsteinium's (few) uses are a consequence of its scarcity; such a phrase does not really make sense. Additionally, your added statement about the uses of Es and Fm is both uncited and structurally unsound in that location. I understand that you are interested in cataloging the uses of these elements, but these edits were unfortunately not very helpful (this information is already implicit with specifics explained) and disrupted the flow of the text (as far as grammar); as such, I have reverted them.
Please be mindful of this when making future edits, and make sure that you have sources for these assertions (especially "some people say..." or the like). ComplexRational (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay, maybe I put it in the wrong way. I just want to say that there are more than a scarce amount of uses for Einsteinium and maybe it might not be the last element to even have a use because Fm may have a use but were not sure. Thats why I'll need more info. As for the sources, I'm sure their are some sources to share, I just have limited resources. I hope you understand. Porygon-Z (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

ID_0x906E9

45680 Kritsadakorn Kaewkham (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

What is an ID, the only one in 99 IDs? (It's the meaning of the name_unknown) Kritsadakorn Kaewkham (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Einsteinium/Archive_1&oldid=1204128607"