Talk:Nobelium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Elements WikiProject, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details. This article has also been selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia. |
||
 |
This article is also supported by WikiProject Chemistry. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by mav 07:44, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC). Elementbox converted 12:11, 17 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 06:34, 21 June 2005).
Contents |
[edit] Information Sources
Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Nobelium. Additional text was taken directly from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table were obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but were reformatted and converted into SI units.
[edit] Talk
[edit] other metas
Anyone want to update this in liht of isotopes of nobelium? -lysdexia 17:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Russian discovery
Text says this:
- In 1992, the IUPAC-IUPAP Transfermium Working Group (TWG) assessed the claims of discovery and concluded that only the Dubna work from 1966 correctly detected and assigned decays to Z=102 nuclei at the time. The Dubna team are therefore officially recognised as the discoverers of nobelium although it was most likely detected at Berkeley in 1959.
The previous paragraphs tell us differently, according to my (subjective) estimation: it tells us that the Berkeley team discovered a signal that was assigned to 254No but then reassigned 252No as fit. By my estimation, this instead indicates that also the Berkeley group detected spurious signals, like the Nobel Institute, and that IUPAC was perfectly correct in assigning the discovery to (FLNR). I think this is the most neutral point of view, and that the text just should say to whome IUPAC assigned the discovery, not claiming that Berkeley detected it too. Said: Rursus ☻ 14:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
