Get Template Talk:Infobox Bohrium Isotopes essential facts below. View Videos or join the Template Talk:Infobox Bohrium Isotopes discussion. Add Template Talk:Infobox Bohrium Isotopes to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
half-life not long enough for chemical and some physical properties to make sense
I've deleted the following entries from the elementbox. Not only could I not find evidence for them in the cited sources, but it seems dubious that something with a half-life of 22 seconds could form crystals, molecules, etc, enough to measure these.
appearance : unknown, probably silvery white or metallic gray
Don't know if it is necessary to issue a (partial) correction after so many years, but forming compounds and crystals is possible in a lot less than 22 seconds. It is fine to list things like that if we have sources, and we don't just blindly follow periodic trends (which can be affected by things like relativistic effects). Kingdon (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I (as a Russian) suspect Russians/Germans suggested the name Nielsbohrium to the element not only "to signify", but because Rissians drop most Latin endings in most Latin-based names, and totally change some, so "Boron" in Russian is undestinguishable from "Bohr" (ru:). Latin "-um" in the element names is usually not dropped but transformed, usually to "-iy". Two unrelated elements called "Bor" and "Boriy" would be very confusing. 126.96.36.199 02:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Troublesome, this. But then again the Russians may try something special for Bohrium, after all there is a special sign ? which is very suitable for the prps. Said: Rursus? 11:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
And the situation in Polish is even worse because the Latin termination -um is always dropped in case of chemical elements, so we have "bor" and "bohr", which are pronounced identically, so far :( Pittmirg 15:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC) --Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittmirg (talk o contribs)
They're not supposed to be pronounced identically. From the source: ,,Wymowa nazw pochodz?cych od nazwisk powinna by? zgodna z wymow? nazwisk uhonorowanych w ten sposób uczonych, nazw? pierwiastka 107 powinno wymawia? si? razem z liter? "h", tak aby odró?ni? go od pierwiastka boru (B). ... bohr, ?eby pisowni? silniej odró?ni? go (jako bohrium) od boru (jako borum); ponadto wprawdzie tlenek borium jest ca?kiem do przyj?cia, to nieaprobowalna jest forma boriumek (bo borium jest rzeczownikiem rodzaju nijakiego, a przyrostek -ek zdrabnia tylko rzeczowniki m?skie!)" (TL;DR, if I understand this correctly: the h is pronounced, and grammatical gender will take care of the compounds.) Normally we don't consider names in other languages in the English popflock.com resource articles, but given that this sort of situation was the reason "nielsbohrium" was originally proposed instead of "bohrium", this may be worth mentioning here in this special case. Double sharp (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's a similar situation in German, where boron is called "Bor" and spelled exactly the same as "Bohr".--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The article refers to the "TWG". This needs an explanation. --Slashme (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Oxidation state 7?
The further text gives support for state V. I think oxidation state shouldn't be confused with group number ... L8R. Said: Rursus? 06:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Oxidation state was 7; the sårce speax ab8t BhO?Cl, not BhOCl?. I fixed the formula error accordingly. Said: Rursus? 11:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
On 274Bh's half-life
Isotope 274Bh was recently added to this article with a half-life of 1.3 min. However, the source given for it only seems to refer to a "lifetime" of 1.3 min for the single nucleus of this isotope that was produced. This would translate to an expected half-life substantially lower (1.3 min*ln(2)?1 min) (with large error bars, of course), not making it the longest-lived isotope. So I think this should be corrected. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is it "*ln2"? If you think you are right, then feel free to go ahead and change it. I am not aware of the conversion details from one event to a population average, so I trust your judgement on this one. Nergaal (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
ln2 is a conversion factor between the half-life (1/2 intensity decay) and lifetime (1/e intensity decay). I am going though articles which used that reference and correcting the values. Materialscientist (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I never noticed the subtle difference until now, but you are right. Nergaal (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The beginning is decently polished. That part is GA-worthy. If I rewrote the Chemical properties section and added physical and atomic properties it would be comparable to the Hs article in current quality. Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Done. There is not so much to say about Bh, because it's not in such an exalted nuclear region as Hs, Cn, and Fl. Bh has been called a superheavy element, not because it is really impressively stable (the original usage Fricke reported in the 1970s), but because the fact that it exists at all proves that something is going on here (the "shoal of deformed nuclei" around Hs). Double sharp (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
There seem to be no webarchive/Wayback Machine URLs for Refs 10 & 18... (I just ran a Wayback tool on Ref #10 and the machine that serves the file is down right now.) It bothers me that these two references turn up in so many sources but the actual text reminds somewhat inaccessible to Wikipedia's general readership.
ResearchGate has the full text for reference 10, which I have added a link to, but unfortunately not for reference 18. Double sharp (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
On my last pass reading the article, I noticed that there are two redlinked parameters in the references: Ref 21 & Ref 22 both have "chapter= ignored" notices - please fix these. Help:CS1 errors gives instructions on how.