Talk:Isotopes of scandium

coincidence -- first non-valence (3d) electrons, first neutron-heavy nuclei ??

Calcium-40 is the most massive nucleus to remain stable with equal numbers of protons & neutrons. All heavier nuclei "prefer" excess neutrons. And, all heavier nuclei-cum-atoms "stick" electrons into interior, non-valence (d,f) orbitals. Is that coincidence, between the physics occurring within the nucleus, and between the same and surrounding electrons, significant ? 66.235.38.214 (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isotopes of scandium. 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:

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) 14:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

37 and 38 evidence is WP:TOONEW

The article cites a single primary ref from 2024 for isotope 37 and 38:

Dronchi, N.; Charity, R. J.; Sobotka, L. G.; Brown, B. A.; Weisshaar, D.; Gade, A.; Brown, K. W.; Reviol, W.; Bazin, D.; Farris, P. J.; Hill, A. M.; Li, J.; Longfellow, B.; Rhodes, D.; Paneru, S. N.; Gillespie, S. A.; Anthony, A. K.; Rubino, E.; Biswas, S. (2024-09-12). "Evolution of shell gaps in the neutron-poor calcium region from invariant-mass spectroscopy of ^37,38Sc, ³⁵Ca, and ³⁴K". Physical Review C. 110 (3). doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.110.L031302. ISSN 2469-9985.

However these marginal isotopes are very difficult to characterize. For example, in

Meierfrankenfeld, D.; Bury, A.; Thoennessen, M. (2011). "Discovery of scandium, titanium, mercury, and einsteinium isotopes". Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. 97 (2): 134–151. doi:10.1016/j.adt.2010.11.001.

Says:

"The discovery of especially the light scandium isotopes was difficult. Five isotopes – two of them twice – were initially identified incorrectly (40–42Sc, 44 Sc and 47 Sc). The half-life of 49 Sc had first been assigned to 44 Sc and then to 41 Sc."

Therefore I think I think we should wait for a secondary reference. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we were alerted to them in the first place was exactly an update from the Thoenessen et al. project which you cite. These new scandium isotope discoveries were mentioned on their page, which seems secondary enough to me.

(Also, WP:TOONEW is about RfA.) Double sharp (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's a RfA? Johnjbarton (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for adminship. Double sharp (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. I see! Well someone else in physics has been using it to mean a primary paper that is unconfirmed and potentially controversial. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing in Scandium is still incorrect. I'll take it up on that Talk page. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]