Talk:Isotopes of bismuth

Bismuth 211

Below the long lived isotope OE83Bi209 the next lowest OE isotope OE83Bi211 is noted to half life of only 2.14 minutes, whereas the next lower OE isotope OE83Bi213 is noted to have a half life of 46 minutes. This makes for an irregularity in a stability profile chart for this element.WFPM (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

So what? There is no law of nature that forbids such a pattern. Who cares if it is irregular? SBHarris 20:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note that 128 is 2 above the magic number 126. You will notice that all N = 128 isotones after Bi are ridiculously unstable. 103.166.228.86 (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you noticed! It's just that that results in the stability trend line for the 2 OO isotopes OO83Bi210 and OO83B1212 being greater than the OE isotope trend line in this area, which is contrary to the way that the stability trend lines usually compare to each other. In odd Z isotopes, the OE stability trend line is practically always greater than the the OO stability trend line. And in even Z isotopes, the EE trend line is greater than the EO trend line. And what's causing it in this case is the reported low value of the halflife of OE83Bi211.WFPM (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

And the laws of nature evidently have to do with the dynamic structural balance of the nucleus of the atom, with the less balanced nuclei having a correspondingly shorter halflife. And the log second value is a better utility for comparison than the actual halflife value and a reasonable range value of from only 0 to 18. I tried to explain and illustrate this in Talk:Isotopes of lead.WFPM (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isotopes of bismuth. 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://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) 14:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Removing Superfluous Double Quotes

I decided to remove the superfluous double quotes around "stable" and "bred" in the first section. If acceptable, I may clean up the quotes further, as there might be some others worth removing. If "bred" needs further explanation, we could link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor if necessary. Feel free to let me know if anyone disagrees, thanks.

Culveyhouse (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

You're right, these quotes are not in place. We don't do indirect wording in this encyclopedia, nor is it about the word itself (then again, in which case, italics should be used not "-quotes per WP:WORDSASWORDS). -DePiep (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistencies about Bismuth 207

There's 2 different half-lives listed for it in the same page If I recall correctly, in the paragraph before the table it's listed as 32.9 years, and in the table right below it as 31.55 years 91.230.13.164 (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Possible alpha decay of ²⁰⁸Bi

²⁰⁸Bi has slightly lower alpha decay energy than ²⁰⁹Bi, so they should have similar alpha decay half-lives. N = 125 is more stable than N = 126 at least from lead (Z = 82) on. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

β- or IT of ^210mBi

Due to its high spin of 9^-, β- or IT of ^210mBi is not observed, and both have branching ratio expected to be < 3×10^-5% (half-life > 1.01×10¹³ years). See https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ensnds/210/Bi/adopted.pdf. 103.166.228.86 (talk) 04:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

See also this article 129.104.241.231 (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)