Talk:Roentgenium/Archive 1

Archive 1

What year...

...do you think this element will get an official name?? My estimate is 2010. 66.32.142.216 00:01, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

True or false??

True or false: When the Roentgenium name becomes official sometime in the near future, the chemical symbol will be Ro. 66.245.2.190 16:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

False. The proposed symbol is Rg. Eric119 20:04, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

The name Roentgenium is now official: http://www.iupac.org/news/archives/2004/naming111.html andy 11:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Updating articles in that respect -- Chris 73 Talk 13:10, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmmm. The pic in the table still needs updating. Eric119 06:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Added a request for a new image to User talk:Maveric149, who made the image in the first place. -- Chris 73 Talk 10:07, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I edited the image myself. Behold the power of GIMP. :-) --timc | Talk 17:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Isotopes and half-livss?

So, is there one isotope, or three? Is the half-life 15 milliseconds, or 3.5 seconds, or 17 microseconds, or what? And if only three atoms of it were creqated, can we really talk about a half-life properly? DS 13:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again isotopes

According to the article, there are three isotopes known, but the article earlier says that all atoms synthesized were Rg-272. What is the correct information? Eric119 06:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Um...

"It is unlikely that Roentgenium will be used to make coins." Is it really neccesary to point this out? yes is it?

I think this is kind of stupid too...Antagonist 05:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, sounds like a consensus, or close enough for now. I've taken it out. For the record, the text was:

==Trivia==

The elements in Group 11 used to informally be called the coinage metals, due to their historical use in coins. It is unlikely that roentgenium can be used to make coins since all of its isotopes are radioactive with very short half-lives, and nothing has been invented to hold atoms together.

This kind of is covered by Wikipedia:Trivia (or the other policies and guidelines about what is encyclopedic, take your pick). Kingdon 06:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless a stable isotope (or metastable isomer, like Ta-180m) is discovered in the future. Which is extremely unlikely, but not impossible...Stonemason89 (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Uuu...

Come on! What in the world is wrong with the name Unununium. Whats with this dumb Roetgenium rubish.

Remember... You can be happy in a Geo-Mag world!

Unununium is a pretty fine name, but it should be perfect if it was named unununum. This Roentgenium is hickup-provoking, and it should correctly be Röntgenium after Wilhelm Röntgen, and since there aren't ö in the chemical alphabet, Röntgenium must be invalid too. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 15:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I must also pinpoint that there are X-rays in English, but neither Roentgen-rays, nor Röntgen-rays. Unununum-rays should be an alternative. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 15:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Conductivity

It may be a little early to ask, but does Rg also go along with the conductivity of gold, silver and copper?
Considering silver is more conductive than copper, and gold is more conductive than silver, wouldn't Roentgenium be more conductive than gold in it's 3 second half life? 71.168.108.66 18:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC) (VentusIgnis forgot his password...)

I actually think the answer to that is no. Because of relativistic effects, Rg's electronic structure is predicted to be such that the 6d-electrons, rather than the 7s-electrons, end up being responsible for conduction. d-orbital electrons, in general, don't conduct nearly as well as s-orbital electrons due to the fact that they have much higher effective mass. This is why nickel's conductivity is so poor compared to that of copper, silver, or gold (all of which have conductivity contributed only by the s-orbitals). The conductivity of Rg would be expected to be more like that of nickel than that of copper, silver, or gold. That is to say, much lower. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for naive question (I'm sure I new the answer, but forgot where to look it up :-), how about alkali metals with their s-electrons and high resistivity. Is it because of specific Fermi surface? Materialscientist (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I always thought it was because their electron density was so low, due to their large atomic radii. There's probably another reason, though, too. Maybe the weak bonding between the atoms means lower electron mobility? Stonemason89 (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, that and the fact that they have BCC crystal structure, instead of FCC. There appears to be some connection between FCC structure and high conductivity (aluminum, copper, silver, gold, and calcium all have very high conductivity and are all FCC), while HCPs and BCCs generally have much lower conductivity. Speaking of which, I wonder what Roentgenium's crystal structure would be, has anyone attempted to calculate it? I think it probably is FCC, since Ni, Pd, and Pt all have FCC despite the fact that Ni and Pt have incomplete d-orbital subshells (as Rg is also expected to have). But you never know... Stonemason89 (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And specific Fermi surface probably also plays a role, as you said. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"should be" doesn't trump WP:RS

I've removed the following comment:

This 'should' be true. Periodic trends for this group show brown-red coloring. That is why proably is stated.

and restored the {{Fact}} tags. If nothing else, we need a source for explaining what the periodic trends are and how they might apply; to apply them ourselves is WP:OR. Also, there may be theoretical calculations, or even in some cases experimental data, which are generally stronger arguments than those based on periodic trends (which break down in the presence of relativistic effects; see for example the paper cited in element 112 about whether element 112 is a gas. Kingdon 22:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

baptism

"The official baptism took place. . ."

Is that a joke? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering about that for a while. I didn't see anything about it at . I guess if no one shows up with a source we can always just remove it. It could be a joke or hoax. But my first guess was that there was some kind of naming ceremony, celebration, whatever on Friday November 17, 2006. I don't know how easy this would be to track down, and whether it is worth trying. Kingdon 01:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it is not a joke, I was there. See [1]. But my German isn't good enough to write it there. I don't have an account on all versions of Wikipedia. bilbo pingouin 01:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Chronology flaw.

In 2001, the IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party (JWP) from concluded that there was insufficient evidence for the discovery at that moment in time.[3] The GSI team repeated their experiment in 2000 and detected a further 3 atoms. Can anybody revise that section please? -andy 92.230.14.202 (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct no. of electrons per shell?

What is the correct configuration: a) 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 17, 2 as in the infobox, or b) 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 1 as in the text? I believe it is (b) since this is a Group 11 element and should share the valence properties in this group, namely copper, silver, and gold.Titus III (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The image is also 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 1 (meaning the infobox actually contains both claims). /Lokal_Profil 22:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 17, 2 is correct, due to relativistic effects. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "calculated"? Has the configuration actually been determined? kwami (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

de:Roentgenium

Silvery? Maybe not

The article mentions that roentegenium should be silvery in appearance and uses as evidence the fact that it's not expected to have any electronic transitions in the visible wavelengths. This, however, is not sufficient; it only proves that Rg will not absorb light, not that it will reflect light. In order for it to be silvery, it would have to have a plasma frequency high enough to reflect light throughout the entire visible spectrum. I don't think this would be the case; the 7s orbital in Rg is expected to be significantly contracted due to relativistic effects, to a much greater extent than the 6s electrons in Au are. The increase in relativistic mass is associated with a decrease in plasma frequency. In fact, the plasma frequency of Rg may be lowered to such an extent that it could become fully or partially transparent. So I'm not sure we should be so confident in our prediction that Rg will be silvery. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

____________________

Silvery

If sufficient quantities of Roentgenium (or Auxillium..or Galactium..) were brought together it would probably appear as a brilliant silvery metal. Metals of the Silver-Gold Group form an inner periodicity. Note the relationship of Copper to Gold. The same relationship exists with Silver and Roentgenium. Indeed, Roentgenium probably does exist in nature as a stable element with atomic weight 291 and 292. However, because of its rarity and relative mass the element is undetected. Observations pertaining to the Island of Stability clearly indicate that an element of atomic number 111 and atomic weight 291 or 292 should exist. Beyond Roentgenium the existence of super heavy metal is the subject of different laws of nature.

Color

Like how can it be confirmed to be colored like gold? Webelements doesn't claim that, they claim it to be silvery or gray in appearence. Andros 1337 23:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My reading of the article is that it is a prediction that, should enough of it ever be brought together, it would look something like gold...no one's actually seen it, so no web site could claim any color as confirmed. 208.23.142.201 19:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

According to that, I believe that therefore, it could possibly be a combination of a goldlike color and a silver/metallic gray color. We may never know, but I will try to see if there is a way to macroscopically produce it and take a picture.

With that statement, I have two responses. The first: I predict it would be a mixture of gold, a silver-like color, and possibly a lime green (that color is often associated with radioactivity). I believe it would be a solid. And my second response is on getting a macroscopic sample. My idea is like this: we actually don't need a macroscopic quantity of roentgenium for us to know. In fact, I would say that we would probably be able to tell what color it is by the time we get a sample the size of a typical body cell (like a red blood cell). How we produce it is by producing roentgenium at an extremely quick rate using many cyclotrons (I would like to call them the Unununotrons) that would all constantly produce more roentgenium so fast that even with decay, more roentgenium is produced. As soon as color can be told, a photograph of the roentgenium is taken. My method would also work on any other element we currently can't say we have a picture of.

Though a lime-green glow is associated with radioactivity, radioactive elements do not give off any sort of glow. The fact that radiation is invisible to the naked eye makes it all the more dangerous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.165.19 (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Whereas roentgenium is a superheavy element, and thus can only be created in particle accelerators. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Atomic number

Number "111" and symbol "Uuu" ? That's just too fun, hope it stays this way ;-) --FvdP

It didnt... :( --67.81.20.56 23:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Its symbol was Uuu because it was number 111. Each "un" in Unununium represents a 1, and since there are three "un"s, the name really means "element 111". The symbol, based off the name, was then Uuu. ;) timrem 22:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Element 111, unfortunately, is not unununium. It has been named roentgenium in 2007. Besides, "Unununium" is now a redirect to "Roentgenium". And it's symbol is "Rg", not "Uuu". --3.14159265358pi (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Er, did you notice that this thread is over five years old? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose an archive is needed, then. →Στc. 08:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

New discovery of natural Rg by Marinov

Before adding this fresh report, please check whether you have reliable sources for that and read a previous story on a heavy element discovery by this group:

A 2008 claim by Amnon Marinov and six other researchers for discovery of naturally existing element 122 was criticized by other scientists, and turned down without peer review by both Nature and Nature Physics.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Materialscientist (talk • contribs)

Arxiv, New Scientist, Chemistry World... sorry, you'll need to do better than that. We need peer-reviewed stuff for something like this. Your DOI for the Rodushkin et al (2008) preprint is to an article published by Oganessian et al (2008) in Phys. Rev. C, about something completely different. The published version is doi:10.1142/S0218301310014662, which reads "evidence for", which is far removed from a claim of actually synthesis and discovery. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Also what in the world has this to do with Roentgenium???? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, the text above is about previous "discovery" of another element (112) by Marinov et al. The text which is being added is about "discovery" of natural roentgenium in gold. It is so fresh (30 Nov) that has hardly been evaluated. However, the pattern is rather similar to the 2008 work (extraordinary claims by simple measurements). The new isotopes, 261Rg and 265Rg are not listed anywhere and seem too light .. Materialscientist (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The edits were to do with the CLAIM(/s) that Roentgenium had a stable isotope. And are you seriously challenging the validity of Arxiv? Really? So we'll just go with everything on here being from peer reviewed journals? That'll cut down the content of wikipedia to almost *NOTHING*.

The *claims* are notable and worded in such a way as to avoid controversy. Unless you have consensus otherwise, then you're not being responsible members here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjel (talk • contribs) 07:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this all boils down to a problem in interpretation.

• The edits were pointing out that /claims/ had been made in regards to stable isotopes. NOT that there are stable isotopes. I have attempted to reach a compromise position by pointing to the possibility that the claims might be wrong, if this is unacceptable, then by all means suggest an alternative.

• That the claims are being made (and apparently frequently) is notable.

• arXiv is a legitimate and reasonable source for information on science whose reliability supersedes that of many many other news sources that are being relied on for information elsewhere on wikipedia.

These are the points to argue, guys. If you're just coming in here screaming about the claims being dubious, then you're not addressing the meat of the argument.

Danjel (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we are the bad guys here. Seriously, you are trying to make a case that this claim is notable for inclusion. No. Simply put, if I post my article to arxiv, it does not mean my results are correct or important. Materialscientist (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

AGAIN, you are missing the point. So I repeat:

The edit(s) do not put forward the claim as being either correct or incorrect, simply that the claim has been made.

If you're interested in compromising here and proposing a new way to word the edit so that it addresses the above, then fantastic. Go ahead. Suggest away. Danjel (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not include any claims, only notable claims. So re-read my comment above. Materialscientist (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not enough of (or even a correct) a counterargument: Flat_Earth

Are you actually interested in discussion, here? Do you know how the BRD Cycle works? Danjel (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggested that you read that, as you apparently don't know yourself. It's up to the proposer to demonstrate notability. — kwami (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the ad hominem. Great to see we're being sensible.

As to notability, the search for stable super heavies is notable, therefore, the existence of claims is notable.

I'm giving this half a day. If there are no actual counterarguments or offers of compromise (you know, responses that aren't just attacking me personally, or going away to attack strawmen), then I'm putting my edit back in. - Danjel (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If your aim is to show simply such a claim exists, then you should cite a reliable source that actually discusses the validity of the claim in the proper scientific context.Polyamorph (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, from WP:RS, " For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves." If the article had been accepted in a peer reviewed journal then might be ok to cite, but since apparently no peer review has been performed the citation lacks any credibility whatsoever. Polyamorph (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In this case, because as has been noted, the claims could be a bit dubious, I relied on the arXiv blog post, and not the article for exactly that reason. The blog post notes the possibility of problems with the article in it's noting that this could be "controversial" and will need "independent confirmation" and so on and so forth. arXiv is reliable, and it discusses the veracity of the claim.

The point here is not whether the claims are correct or incorrect, just that they've been made. I believe this is notable for exactly the reason Materialscientist points to for maintaining this article in pristine condition "further, I hope you realize the importance of this discovery, if true" (from here User_talk:Danjel#Re:Roentgenium). It would be an important discovery (if true) and therefore, by extension, the (repeated) claims and continuing controversy are notable. - Danjel (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A blog is not a Reliable Source. Polyamorph (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

...arXiv is reliable. It provides commentary news on scientific articles posted to arXiv. - Danjel (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The reliability of arXiv is debatable...but that's for another discussion. The main point is that 1) blogs are not generally reliable sources and 2) it isn't an independent source, the article was uploaded to arXiv so it is in their interest to promote it (no such thing as bad press and all that. So unless this is reported other independent reliable sources (hence indicating notability) I don't think it should be included. Polyamorph (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we'll wait until it is... If, as materialscientist says, this is likely to be so controversial, then it shouldn't take long for google news alerts to let me know. Cheers. -Danjel (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This looks to me like a clear consensus to respect the recent news item provision in WP:SCIRS, yes? And to stop inserting the material in question until there is agreement regarding relevance to this article and wording, yes? Thank you, Danjel, for volunteering to stop edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with the consensus to not include the new text and add this: The existence of a stable isotope for this element is a question of science and modern scientific evidence can't start the process of being accepted as part of the scientific consensus until it is has been vetted by the peer review process. So any mention of a scientific discovery about this element must be ultimately traceable to a reputable peer reviewed science journal even if the cited source is an otherwise WP:RS. Making a science claim outside the accepted peer review process and putting that claim into the article would be giving undue weight to sources that are not appropriate for backing-up scientific evidence. --mav (reviews needed) 19:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There were a lot of claims of superheavy elements in mica. There might be a place for the claim in an article about those unverified claims. But claims with no real support anywhere should not go into an article.--Stone (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree Stone. This was my edit wherein I tried to come to a compromise position with those who (apparently) don't like Marinov:

In 2010, a team led by Amnon Marinov has claimed the discovery of stable Roentgenium alongside naturally occurring gold. It is important to note that previous claims as to a stable Roentgenium isotope, including those made by Marinov, have been heavily criticised.

Claims existence is interesting, and this is why it is being picked up on by various places around. There's been a couple of people that have tried to edit it in now (including me, now, 3). I continue to disagree with people who claim that arXiv is not a reliable source, but there are now blog entries from New Scientist and Nature (which I also consider reliable - seriously, if we're just going with things that have been mentioned in academic journals, wikipedia will be sparse on the ground) which can be subbed in. So this issue is controversy enough to justify this discussion at least.

Can we modify what I've said in such a way as to make it more acceptable to people? -Danjel (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

May be I was not clear enough: I would suggest to include this info in an article about the island of stability or something related, because I do not think that it is really related to Roentgenium but more to the strange belief of some strange scientists in a superstabilization effect somewhere in the island of stability.--Stone (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have tried to make it clear but it obviously hasn't sunk in. A blog is not a reliable source. Regardless of the publisher it is not an independent source. This is all detailed in WP:RS, I and others here shouldn't have to keep repeating ourselfs, just read the policy carefully and it will become clear that blogs are self-published opinions and so cannot be used as a source. Arxiv is not a source, it is a publisher. Some of the articles they host are reliable, e.g. those which have undergone peer review elsewhere and are just listed at arxiv for archival purposes. Other articles have not undergone any review and so should be taken with pinch of salt. Find an article (not another blog) that is published by a third party and discusses the scientific validity of Marinov's claims, without giving undue weight to them, and we can have a discussion on the matter. But until you read, understand and accept WP:RS we can't help you. Polyamorph (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not proposing that we validate Marinov's claim. Never have, despite the frequent attempts to present my argument as being such. ...and neither have any of the other editors so far. Rather, I propose that we include detail saying that the claim has been made. The "scientific validity" of Marinov's claim is /not/ at question and /not/ a part of the edit that I have proposed.

Keeping this in mind, you are not contending that this (ie, you're not saying that it's possible that the claim has not been made), and therefore what is the problem with arXiv as a source?

WP:Blogs was written to exclude most blogs, that is why I suppose it goes to the subheading which includes the word "usually". I am not aware of anywhere where it says that blogs should not be used full-stop. In any case, if you don't like the arXiv source, then there are a number of others which relay the information.

Stone: Got a suggestion on a (friendly) article which would be suitable?

Can I please just repeat that I am not proposing to validate Marinov's claim. So we can move on.

-Danjel (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I a willing to help to create a history section in the Island of stability article. I will start it on the talk page of the article first going from the first proposed search in mica and moon rock to the search today which could include the sentence mentioning Marinov. I know that the source is not really good and the claim is really fresh, but in a history section basically summarizing the long and very unlucky search of a lot of researchers. I hope we can agree on this? Materialscientist and Jdrewitt would this OK for you? The arxiv article looks really like they want to publish it in a peer reviewed journal. The 2002 paper has similar authors an was published although it looks strange for me that somebody is proposing a long lived atom above bismuth, but somebody peer reviewed it.--Stone (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Stone, voice of reason.

I don't think Marinov needs to be mentioned by name in amongst other claims that have been made by other authors. That would get over the freshness of the current claim, if that's such a major problem.

-Danjel (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the inclusion of the claim, provided it has a valid citation that adheres to WP:RS and WP:UNDUE and adresses our concerns re: notability. Thus far no such citation has been supplied. Regarding the comment "The voice of reason" this is unacceptable, as are the comments on my talk page. I have been trying to help you and have urged you to find a reliable source to make it possible to include the claim. Some of us here are experienced scientists and hence expect high standards with respect to the reliability of sources. Polyamorph (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

...

Responded on your talk page. You've taken offense for some reason... Maybe we can work this out.

But, again: I am not proposing that we validate Marinov's claim.

Merely that claims have been made. This doesn't require an academic journal article, because it's not declaring something that is disputable (unless you dispute that the claims have been made, in which case...).

The compromise position put forward by Stone would appear to be fine. How about you try to suggest ways we can change it to meet whatever standards you have? -Danjel (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Stone's suggestion sounds fine but I strongly suggest you look for a reliable source that gives a balanced view on the claim. The arxiv blog is not suitable because WP:RS states third party sources are preferable. The nature blog is better but it is still a blog and reads like an opinion. A balanced article would be better as a source if one can be found. Polyamorph (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's move away from the arXiv article, if it's problematic and use either [[2]] (NewScientist) and [[3]] (Nature) instead. Both are still blogs, but they're a level removed from arXiv, and I believe that they're still OK for noting the existence of claims (as well as their questionability).

For now, yeah, keep it to do with just the existence of the claims, noting their possible dubiousness. When better sources come along, we'll upgrade the language and reference. -Danjel (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Nature is more reputable than newscientist but they are both third party sources. I suggest using both of the blogs as the reference with a view to replacing the sources when new articles become available. The reason being because although you just want to report the claims existence, in such a case it is important to comment on the validity of the claim because it otherwise readers might assume the claims are true. But in order to discuss the validity of the claim we need reliable sources, i.e. a balanced article that discusses the science in terms of other publoshed literature (this doesn't necessarily have to be an academic paper in itself by the way) as opposed to an individual editors opinion in a blog. Hope that is clear. Polyamorph (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, use both. The NewScientist one is good because it notes the controversial nature of this research, if you want to specifically reference that point.

I think if/when the research gets validated, the issue will probably need to be discussed again, perhaps here. I'm looking forward to that. :) -Danjel (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Correction: Roentgenium is a synthetic element, just like every other transactinide element. Because it is extremely radioactive, it may not occur in nature. If you look at Template:Infobox roentgenium, it is clear it is a synthetic element. So Marinov DID NOT discover roentgenium in nature. That, of course, concludes this discussion. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

This still seems to be an issue. As far as I can tell, the original arxiv preprint has not been validated and no publication in a peer reviewed journal has yet surfaced. Until it does I will not support the addition of unconfirmed and dubious information to be added to this article. Blogs are also not good sources, if there are valid articles in third party scientific literature noting this dubious "discovery" then feel free to supply the references. In the meantime blogs are not considered reliable sources (see WP:BLOGS). This link http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26096/?p1=Blogs is clearly a blog, not a well sourced article, the only source is Marinov's dubious arxiv preprint and I won't support its addition. We're not here to publicise Marinov's ideas. Find some better sources that discuss this objectively and we might be able to come to a compromise, but persistently adding this unsuitable link won't do. Polyamorph (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

See also my user talk page for comments from Barwick (talk). Polyamorph (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's my problem with that requirement: Being a non-mainstream scientist myself, I tend to shun the white paper, peer reviewed, conform to common thinking that is so prevalent in the scientific community today. The "scientific", peer-reviewed process is hardly unbiased. Case in point, the whole Global Warming thing, no journal wanted to publish dissenting information on the topic when it would threaten a solid stream of government funding.

Similarly, a scientist has come out with a new theory about superconductivity, with actual experiments to back up his claims. His publications have been continually turned down by peer-reviewed journals, it flies in the face of everything they believe. Per my recommendation, he is now simply going the same route as Andrea Rossi is, and simply skipping the peer-reviewed process in favor of building an actual working prototype for sale to commercial entities.

Andrea Rossi is another good example, as I mentioned above, he has claimed building (and has had 3rd party validation of) a positive energy device that functions on low-energy nuclear reactions. He is skipping the peer-reviewed process and is simply selling it to a commercial company. In late October of this year, delivery is scheduled. All of this is discussed on Wikipedia, despite no peer-reviews.

Just my two cents, I'm no fan of the peer-reviewed process. Marinov's claims seem to have some validity, and nobody to date has disproven their claims. I think they're worthy of at least a mention. The man himself is at least somewhat notable, search his name on Google.

Barwick (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, The biggest issue here, with the Roentgenium claim, is notability. As far as I can see it hasn't been significantly reported in the main stream press or scientific literature. We have policies on notability and try to follow the general notability guidelines (although actually it's more appropriate in this case to consider the policy WP:DUE with regards to giving due weight to certain topics covered within articles). I don't think this claim meets those requirements, and in cases that are particularly controversial we have to be careful not to promote a particular viewpoint. Like it or not, peer review is the best way to judge scientific credibility. It is not beyond bias of course but that is generally why we do not rely on primary sources on wikipedia. It is always better to find a third party source. This is actually wikipedia policy and is designed to produce the most verifiable and trustworthy wikipedia articles. Anyone can make such a claim and publish it on Arxiv, it lacks credibility. But besides that I don't think that this claim has received significant coverage and so don't find it notable. Regards Polyamorph (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Roentgenium's Information

Can Roentgenium have a boiling point,m.p., etc. at the appointed year it will be renamed?-- Tawana howard Age15

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.138.67 (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2006‎ (UTC)

N=170 isotones

"The most stable known isotope is ²⁸¹Rg with a half-life of ~26 seconds,[4] which decays by spontaneous fission, like many other N=170 isotones."

How can it be? There are only three known nuclides with N=170: ²⁸¹Rg, ²⁸²Cn, and ²⁸³Uut. The former two decay by SF, but ²⁸³Uut decays by α. Burzuchius (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roentgenium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) 04:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Few minor issues:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The sentence on RgH about the strength of the bond should reference something for the "otherwise", as we're making a comparison when we say "twice as...". The paragraphs on nuclear isomers should give a little background for the general reader. "as yet undiscovered" → "undiscovered". Also, for the polyfluoride anions, say "predicted to be" - you can't say it that definititely without any chemistry experiements on it. For experimental chemistry, why do you say that the reason why it hasn't been measured is due to the short half-lives, when 26 seconds is plenty of time according to the requirement mentioned in the following sentence?

    Done Double sharp (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   What does it mean when "more complex compounds" may be formed by Rg(III) then Au(III)?--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

    Done Double sharp (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold while the prose is improved.

Table

This article needs a table of reactions used to synthesize the element and the results, like "Successful reaction" or "Failure to date" or "Reaction yet to be attempted".--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC) --Solomonfromfinland (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I use the pronunciation /rœntˈɡɛniəm/. (Using the vowel [œ] that is not normally used in English.) This is to reflect the proper pronunciation of the name Röntgen. This pronunciation, using a rounded front vowel, is easy to me because I speak Finnish, which has rounded front vowels. Note also that I like phonological diversity (large vowel and consonant inventories, etc.) in languages, so I am happy to borrow foreign vowels or consonants into English (or Finnish for that matter). (My Wikipedia username is Solomonfromfinland; I am from Finland.) Nonetheless, I suggest that the pronunciation /rœntˈɡɛniəm/ be added alongside the two already listed; I consider the pronunciation with [œ] preferable to the two already listed.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I sympathise with your desire to reflect the original German pronunciation, and indeed pronounce the name this way myself, but unfortunately, due to English's lack of [œ], this pronunciation is just not used often enough by English native speakers to count as a standard English pronunciation. Double sharp (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

History

It's surprising that the old name (Uuu) is not even mentioned. For a fringe element the article is fairly robust and specifically allocates history. B137 (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I added that edit, but it was reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.160.108.91 (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Rg-286 unconfirmed

Apparently ²⁸⁶Rg is the most stable isotope (640s), buty "unconfirmed". I've removed it from the main infobox (which does not have to list the most stable ones per se any more). It can stay in the Isotopes section I guess. -DePiep (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

For superheavy elements, "main" and "most stable" essentially coincide; after all, the reason we keep making more is because we're looking for the island of stability. The isotopes you can use for chemistry are always the most stable ones (lasting more than 1 second), and there are so few of those that I'd keep even the unconfirmed ones. Double sharp (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, ²⁸²Mt and ²⁷⁸Bh are also unconfirmed most-stable isotopes. The assignment in the Hofmann paper is pretty sound and has been taken up by others (see for example the Kaji paper on Lv production from 2017, cited in the Lv article); the only question is that no one has yet repeated the experiment which originally found what seems to be electron capture of ²⁹⁰Fl. Double sharp (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

OK then. Thanks for clarifying. -DePiep (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem! Double sharp (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

I would like to discuss the recent edits on this page by 89.107.5.192, which have been recently reverted by Materialscientist and myself, for the following reasons:

1. The comma being added to the phrase "extremely radioactive, synthetic element" appears to be either ungrammatical or nonsensical. The element is not somehow extremely synthetic. It is a synthetic element that happens to be extremely radioactive.
2. It is not at all clear how the use of {{unk}} to give the unknown isotopes their distinct cell colour is helpful. At the very most it is distracting, given that it occurs only in one cell of their respective rows. It may perhaps be a tad bit more sensible if the whole row was marked somehow.

The editor in question has been stonewalling all explicit invitations to discuss (e.g. [4]) and has instead been throwing back warnings placed on his talk page onto mine (here, never mind that I explicitly stopped reverting after the 3rd revert and have been going to the talk page). Given that he seems to be more willing to have his way than to discuss, perhaps some other measures may be required to resolve this dispute. Double sharp (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The editor in question has then gone on to add completely specious "clarify" tags on perfectly ordinary notation, which is very disruptive and, contrary to his assertions, not at all helpful. Double sharp (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

He is now also fairly obsessed with the idea of "proving you are helping before doing anything" in his continued vandalism. Double sharp (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

And now some most charming edit summaries along the lines of "protectionist bullshit". Double sharp (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

And now graduating to personal attacks. Double sharp (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Even more impressive: first claiming that "extremely radioactive" needs to be hyphenated, and then accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about by removing the hyphen. Double sharp (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Since this ought to be a relatively uncontroversial grammatical correction, I am continuing to revert this particular one; for the edits to the style of the table, I have left off the reverts to comply with WP:3RR. Double sharp (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is just one example among many of "extremely radioactive" lacking a hyphen in the literature: [5] Double sharp (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

IP 89 is blocked. Here are the current resulting edits since their first edit; to revert all? Compliments: quite a good and devastating report you made here, and showing loads of patience on your side, Double sharp. -DePiep (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted the remaining bits. Some of those edits are from me noticing something else while reverting this IP, so those can remain, I think. Double sharp (talk) 08:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)