| Revision as of 07:23, 11 September 2018 editCyclopia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,091 edits →Claims of no separation from lanthanum date from 1950: are we sure things did not change in 68 years?: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:43, 14 April 2024 edit undoAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,578,638 editsm Substing templates: {{Unsigned}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info. | ||
| (18 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1= | ||
| {{WikiProject Elements|importance=Mid}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{ArticleHistory | {{ArticleHistory | ||
| |action1=GAN | |action1=GAN | ||
| Line 11: | Line 14: | ||
| |action2result=promoted | |action2result=promoted | ||
| |action3 = GTR | |||
| |ftname=Actinides | |||
| |action3date = 09:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| |action3link = Misplaced Pages:Featured topic removal candidates/Actinide/archive1 | |||
| |action3result = Removed | |||
| |currentstatus=GA | |currentstatus=GA | ||
| |topic=natsci | |topic=natsci | ||
| }}{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 90K | |||
| |counter = 1 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 3 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(730d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Actinium/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Archives |age=730}} | |||
| {{V0.5|category = Natsci|class=GA}} | |||
| {{WP1.0|WPCD=yes|class=GA}} | |||
| {{Vital article|level=4|topic=Science|class=GA|subpage=Physics}} | |||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject |
||
| {{archives}} | |||
| ==Untitled== | ==Untitled== | ||
| Line 27: | Line 37: | ||
| == Information Sources == | == Information Sources == | ||
| Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from . Additional text was taken directly from ), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via ) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via ). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and ] but was reformatted and converted into ] units. | Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from . Additional text was taken directly from ), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via ) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via ). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and ] but was reformatted and converted into ] units. | ||
| == ] == | |||
| An ] has some possible wiki link suggestions for the ] article, and they have been placed on ] for your convenience.<br />''Tip:'' Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add <nowiki>{{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Actinium}}</nowiki> to this page. — ] 10:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == Hypothetical Application of Actinium == | == Hypothetical Application of Actinium == | ||
| Line 37: | Line 43: | ||
| Actually, the energy emmitted per gram of actinium in equilibrum can be calculated to be approximatly 10 watts per gram with improved data, but this is still approximate and uncertain. | Actually, the energy emmitted per gram of actinium in equilibrum can be calculated to be approximatly 10 watts per gram with improved data, but this is still approximate and uncertain. | ||
| <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | |||
| == |
== Newer review ref == | ||
| The article states, "Actinium-227 is extremely radioactive, and in terms of its potential for radiation induced health effects, actinium-227 is about as dangerous as plutonium. Ingesting even small amounts of actinium-227 would represent a serious health hazard." In fact (not accounting for decay products) Ac 227 is 28400year / 21.7year = 1309 times more radioactive than plutonium 239. Also, its decay products are short lived (the longest is 18 days, much less than the 7*10^8 year half life of plutonium 239). Plutonium 239 emits alpha rays, but Ac 227 and decay products emit alpha, beta, and gamma (?) rays. For this reason, actinium 227 is more dangerous (for the same quantity) than plutonium 239. | |||
| 01:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)] | |||
| == half-life of Ac-227: 21.772 or 21.773 years? == | |||
| The article contains these two different figures. ] (]) 06:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :They are very much the same to me, because the measurement accuracy is never that good. ] (]) 06:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::May just be a typo. I'll fix it. --] (]) 22:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fixed. --] (]) 22:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| If you want to convert the above data into more useful information, you can say that the isotope OE89Ac227 has a base 10 log halflife of 10E6^8.839 seconds and consists of 89 pairs of deuterons plus 49 extra neutrons with 14 of the deuteron pairs having been converted into 7 alpha particles. It is, of course, the first element of the 14 element (14 I say 14!) actinide series, and accordingly should be a cogener of 57La lanthanum. It falls on the stability trend line A = 3Z - 40, and into the 4n + 3 (uranium-actinium series) 0f radioactive materials.] (]) 04:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, the actinides are chemically defined, and so Lr is also defined as an actinide despite not being in the f-block. It is unfortunate that there is no single term for just the f-block actinides (I propose "5f-series"). ] (]) 06:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :But if you include 103Lr Lawrencium in the actinides, then you wont have the necessary 2 + 4 + 4 = 10 elements needed to complete the next transition series (Up to 112) And you're fouling up the count of that series for no purpose. And 103Lr is the first of that 10 element series. See ].] (]) 02:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| And,of course after you have added the 2 + 4 + 4 +4 = 14 deuterons to the nucleus to make the actinide series additions, there is then no place in the actinide structure addition for an additional deuteron addition. And in this area of the periodic table the incremental growth and dynamic balance of the structure against nuclear structure deficiencies is more important than any chemical affinity properties. So the structural properties are going to have to be paid more attention to.] (]) 23:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I don't have problems with considering Lr to be '''both''' an actinide '''and''' a transition metal. Each classification has its own advantages in its own context (the actinide classification for chemistry, and the transition metal classification for physics). ] (]) 11:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :That's correct as to the classification problem. But with regard to the real physical entity problem, it is wise to note that the Actinium atom is the first of a new category of deuteron additions to the nucleus, and that the range of this category is 2 + 4 + 4 + 4 = 14 additional deuterons. And I don't see much chemistry in this combining activity and therefor don't like the confusion that this 15 element actinide listing is causing. So you say TS and I say ]] (]) 15:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC) And your efforts to rationalize the 15 element actinide series in the Janet table are a good looking compromise and don't look bad until you get around to try to build an ] model of the 15th (103Rf) atom where you're going to find that the 15th (103Rf) deuteron goes on at a different series level,(that of the next 2 + 4 + 4 = 10 element series. Aah se la vie.] (]) 20:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you're talking about the nucleus alone, I do in fact consider Lr a transition metal. If you're talking about the chemistry, Lr is an actinide. That is why I prefer to restrict the term "actinide" to chemical usages and use "5f-series" for the nucleus. ] (]) 12:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::(Note from five and a half years later; this was evidently a case of confusion between brain and fingers. Of course 5f refers to the electrons, not the nuclear shells, which have nothing to do with the electron filling order despite WFPM's pet theory!) ] (]) 02:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::You evidently know enough about chemistry for the distinction to make a difference. I don't know enough about chemistry to care. But I can see that 103Lr is structurally the first of the next 10 atomic nuclei. And I need it to go with 104Rf to make up the first 2 of the next 2 + 4 + 4 = 10 series. Incidentally, when you make a model, the appearance is not so much like an octahedron, but rather like more like the image in ], because the 4 sides of the octahedron have a definite thickness of 1 or 2 levels of nuclides, rather than the sharp side edges of the octahedron image. | |||
| == File:Actinium_RSC.jpg is used here? == | |||
| If it is, I can't find it here. DASHBot can be so annoying. ] (]) 13:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{Talk:Actinium/GA1}} | |||
| == Melting and boiling points == | |||
| Greenwood and Earnshaw give 817 °C and 2470 °C, which would seem to fit better with the trends down group 3 (Sc: 1539, 2478; Y: 1530, 3264; La: 920, 3420; Ac: 817, 2470). Of course, they do not specialise in the chemistry of the rare radioactives (i.e. all the radioactives except Th, U, and Pu), and so they may very well be wrong in this case. ] (]) 12:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825123745/http://radchem.nevada.edu/classes/rdch710/files/actinium.pdf to http://radchem.nevada.edu/classes/rdch710/files/actinium.pdf | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 06:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Claims of no separation from lanthanum date from 1950: are we sure things did not change in 68 years? == | |||
| The sentence: | |||
| {{quote|The low natural concentration, and the close similarity of physical and chemical properties to those of lanthanum and other lanthanides, which are always abundant in actinium-bearing ores, render separation of actinium from the ore impractical, and complete separation was never achieved.<ref name=j2>{{cite journal |doi=10.1021/ja01158a034 |last1=Fried |date=1950 |first1=Sherman |pages=771–775 |volume=72 |journal=Journal of the American Chemical Society |last2=Hagemann |first2=French |last3=Zachariasen |first3=W. H. |title=The Preparation and Identification of Some Pure Actinium Compounds |issue=2}}</ref>}} | |||
| This review available through the wikipedia library, might be useful: | |||
| is sourced to a 1950 article. Are we sure things did not change in the meantime? For example , from 1953, claims total chromatographic separation. I don't know if it counts since it is perhaps not a practical method to produce significant amounts of pure actinium, but I suspect in 68 years something has changed. --]] 07:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * {{Cite book |last=Kirby |first=H. W. |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-007-0211-0_2 |title=Actinium |last2=Morss |first2=Lester R. |date=2010 |publisher=Springer Netherlands |isbn=978-94-007-0210-3 |editor-last=Morss |editor-first=Lester R. |location=Dordrecht |pages=18–51 |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-94-007-0211-0_2 |editor-last2=Edelstein |editor-first2=Norman M. |editor-last3=Fuger |editor-first3=Jean}} | |||
| ] (]) 20:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:43, 14 April 2024
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| Actinium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | ||||||||||||||||
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Untitled
Article changed over to new Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Elements format by Mav, Mkweise, and Dwmyers 15:40 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC). Elementbox converted 10:26, 17 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 07:26, 13 July 2005). 07:26, 13 July 2005
Information Sources
Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Actinium. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Actinium Statistics and Information, from the Elements database 20001107 (via [http://www.dict.org dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.
Hypothetical Application of Actinium
In principle, actinium 227 could be used as a source of thermoelectric power. It has a half life of 21.773 years and emits approximatly 56 J/s per gram of actinium 227 (this calculated energy release takes into account decay produts at equlibrum, assumes no gamma rays, assumes all alpha rays emmited have the same energy, and that all beta rays emitted have the same energy).
Actually, the energy emmitted per gram of actinium in equilibrum can be calculated to be approximatly 10 watts per gram with improved data, but this is still approximate and uncertain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.109.9 (talk • contribs)
Newer review ref
This review available through the wikipedia library, might be useful:
- Kirby, H. W.; Morss, Lester R. (2010). Morss, Lester R.; Edelstein, Norman M.; Fuger, Jean (eds.). Actinium. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. pp. 18–51. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0211-0_2. ISBN 978-94-007-0210-3.
Johnjbarton (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Categories: