Jump to content

Talk:Isotopes of samarium

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isotopes of samarium. 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) 14:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samarium-151

[edit]

Since nuclear fuel is used for several years (burnup) in a nuclear power plant, the final amount of 151Sm in the spent nuclear fuel at discharge is only a small fraction of the total 151Sm produced during the use of the fuel.

This does not make any sense to me, and I strongly suspect it's wrong. With nearly 100 years half life only a few percent of 151Sm decays in the few years it sits in the reactor, so almost all should be present at discharge. --Feldkurat Katz (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that most of the Sm-151 does not decay during that time. However, this is not the primary means of depletion. While the Sm-151 remains inside the reactor, it is exposed to neutron radiation from the ongoing fission; as described in the previous paragraph to the sentence you quoted, Sm-151 absorbs neutrons and is transmuted into stable Sm-152. Thus, its concentration in spent fuel is lower than one would naïvely expect. Magic9mushroom (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isotopes of samarium. 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) 14:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Samarium-147 get "half an electron mass too much mass"?

[edit]

The list at isotopes of promethium and all other sources I can find says that Promethium-147 decays to Samarium-147 by emitting a beta particle. The mass of Promethium-147 is 146.9151385 amu the mass of Samarium-147 is 146.9148979 amu. The difference between the two masses is 0.0002406 amu. A beta particle is nothing other than an electron, which has a rest mass of 5.48579909070×10−4 amu or 0.000548579909070 amu. That means the mass of the electron is greater than the mass difference between the two nuclei. This is impossible, isn't it? If the difference in masses were greater than the mass of the electron, that could be explained by it being carried away in the kinetic energy of the electron or in gamma rays. But you cannot gain mass without consuming energy. And where is this energy coming from? There is about a half electron mass missing (notice that I cut off the "uncertainty" in the brackets in each case and the order of magnitude of the problem is well outside the claimed measurement error). So... How does Promethium-147 emit an electron, create Samarium-147 and in the end there's mass to spare? Where is the mistake? An electron capture reaction can of course produce a mass defect that is smaller than an electron mass, but it cannot ever produce a net mass gain. To gain mass, there must be energy coming from somewhere. Where? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at Talk:Isotopes of promethium. ComplexRational (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are also several responses at Wikipedia_Talk:WikiProject_Physics PianoDan (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Main isotopes

[edit]
For Sm: stable: 144, 147, 148, 149, 150, 152, 154; other: 153, 151, 146 (144, 146–154 = 10)
  • from {{NUBASE2020}} (edit: c/p, replaced unk chars)
144Sm -81965.6 1.5 STABLE 0+ 01 1933 IS=3.08 4;2b+ ?
146Sm -80996 3 68 My7 0+ 16 1953 a=100
147Sm -79266.0 1.3 106.6 Gy0.5 7/2- * 09 FGK204 T 1933 IS=15.00 14; a=100
148Sm -79336.1 1.2 6.3 Py 1.3 0+ 14 16Ca43 T 1933 IS=11.25 9; a=100
149Sm -77135.9 1.2 STABLE >2Py 7/2- * 04 1933 IS=13.82 10; a ?
150Sm -77051.3 1.1 STABLE 0+ 13 1934 IS=7.37 9
151Sm -74576.5 1.1 94:6 y 0.6 5/2- * 09 15Be23 T 1947 b-=100
152Sm -74763.0 1.0 STABLE 0+ 13 1933 IS=26.74 9
153Sm -72560.1 1.0 46:2846 h 0.0023 3/2+ * 20 FGK209 T 1938 b-=100
154Sm -72455.6 1.3 STABLE >2.3Ey 0+ 09 1933 IS=22.74 14; 2b- ?

DePiep (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samarium-146

[edit]
  • To be fixed: "source retracted" [1]: 146-Sm: "ref retracted": incomprehensible inline, reason=(1) "above" is unclear, (2) does not lead to ref source, (3) Needs: source to be used then.
So: which source to be used?, and: which source was retracted, & how to note that one?
-DePiep (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: The relevant sentence is:
A 2012 paper revising the estimated half-life of 146Sm from 10.3(5)×107 y to 6.8(7)×107 y was retracted in 2023.
This is followed by two inline references, one to the 2012 paper and the other to the 2023 retraction. jnestorius(talk) 10:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could find that by researching, all right. However, any reader should arrive at the right ref right away (not "... above"). Also, still don't see what ia the source to be used is. DePiep (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the reference-tag contains a link that the reader is supposed to click on. I've expanded the link to include the word "above" if that's any clearer. jnestorius(talk) 13:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible alpha decay of 143Sm, 145Sm and 151Sm

[edit]

According to the trend shown in [2], 145Sm (N = 83) and 151Sm (N = 89) should have partial alpha-decay half-lives at the order of 1047 years. Note the similar alpha decay energies: 1.12 MeV for the former and 1.15 MeV for the latter.

143Sm (N = 81) has an extremely low alpha decay energy of 0.04 MeV, so alpha decay may be possible but with a half-life long beyond imagination. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

146Sm stable to double EC

[edit]

146Sm is the only non-primordial even-even beta-stable nuclide with Z ≤ 83 that has lower energy than its beta-stable nominal double EC product. It is close to not be: the energy difference between 146Nd and 146Sm is small. 129.104.241.162 (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Cristiano Toàn (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 146Sm should be considered as trace nuclide rather. With earth's age is 4.54 billions years, with 146Sm's half-life is 103 million years thus since the formation of earth. 146Sm has undergone 44 half-lives and declined by factor of about 17. 59 trillion years. If we had 1 mole of 146Sm when the earth was formed, We would still have about 34 billion 146Sm's atoms survived today[reply]

According to this article, the abundance of 146Sm would be around 3.08% * 0.39 * 2-43/1.03 = 3.25*10-13%, corresponding to 1.96*109 atoms per mole of Sm. This is really a tiny fraction: it takes only 4.38 hours for such an amount of 143Nd to form with pure 147Sm initially given! 14.52.231.91 (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem of 146,147Sm is that they have too small atomic number. Hf, W, Os, and Pt each have primordial isotopes with Qα-values exceeding 2.5 MeV, but such Qα-values for around Z = 80 would almost be ignorable (see here). 14.52.231.91 (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And considering that 148Gd and 190Pt both have a Qα-value of 3.27 MeV... (poor 148Gd) 14.52.231.91 (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most stable isotopes of Sm

[edit]

There are chances that double EC of 144Sm, α of 149Sm, and double β- of 154Sm be observed; this would make Sm to have only two observationally stable isotopes (150 and 152) and five natually occurred ratioisotopes. Hf could enjoy a similar situation, as α of 176,177,178Hf may be observed given the predictions here, leaving only two observationally stable isotopes 179 and 180. 129.104.241.193 (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Cristiano Toàn (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC) The problem to measure 149Sm's half-life is its decay product 145Nd is also energically allowed to undergo alpha decay and the latter predicted half-life is not so large to the former one[reply]

By the way, 152Sm is the only isotope whose main decay mode would be cluster decay; see here. 14.52.231.91 (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha decay energies of isotopes of samarium

[edit]
Isotopes Alpha decay energy (keV) Note
129Sm 2940
130Sm 2885
131Sm 2801
132Sm 2512
133Sm 2680
134Sm 2661
135Sm 2484
136Sm 2191
137Sm 1879
138Sm 1724
139Sm 1409
140Sm 1319
141Sm 1216
142Sm 601
143Sm 44
144Sm -144 Beta-stable with 82 neutrons
145Sm 1115
146Sm 2528 Beta-stable with 84 neutrons; least-energy isobar of A = 146
147Sm 2310 Beta-stable with 85 neutrons; least-energy isobar of A = 147
148Sm 1986 Beta-stable with 86 neutrons; least-energy isobar of A = 148
149Sm 1870 Beta-stable with 87 neutrons; least-energy isobar of A = 149
150Sm 1449 Beta-stable with 88 neutrons; least-energy isobar of A = 150
151Sm 1145
152Sm 220 Beta-stable with 90 neutrons; least-energy isobar of A = 152
153Sm -610
154Sm -1197 Beta-stable with 92 neutrons
155Sm -1669
156Sm -1637
157Sm -1808
158Sm -1950
159Sm -2164
160Sm -2313
161Sm -2611
162Sm -2779
163Sm -3105
164Sm -3179
165Sm -3263

129.104.241.231 (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this interesting popular science article on the half-life of 146Sm

[edit]

See here. 129.104.65.7 (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And this one also :) 2A04:CEC0:C015:E728:FD48:30B7:6D36:814A (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Isotopes_of_samarium&oldid=1251592438"