Jump to content

Talk:Astatine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by K6ka (talk | contribs) at 17:32, 11 November 2022 (Malfunctioning bot, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vital_articles_and_Cewbot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleAstatine is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 25, 2015.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 2, 2011Good article nomineeListed
December 2, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
April 30, 2015Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Density of orthorhombic astatine (speculation)

When solid, Cl, Br and I have orthorhombic crystalline structures. The volumes of the respective unit cells are 230.91, 262.1046 and 341.5684 cubic Å. The crystalline atomic radii are 0.99, 1.135 and 1.345 Å. If astatine instead has an (unmetallic) orthorhombic structure, its unit cell volume can be indicatively extrapolated using the cube of its predicted covalent atomic radius of 1.5 Å. Its crystalline atomic radius may be marginally larger due to intralayer bonding, as appears to occur in iodine, but I’ll ignore this possibility as I have no way of quantifying it. A straight line extrapolation (R-squared = 0.9989) of unit cell volume for Cl, Br, and I vs. the cube of atomic radius for Cl, Br, I and At indicates an atomic volume for At of 412.3276. There are eight atoms in an orthorhombic unit cell so that gives a density (from the above calcs for metallic astatine) of 278.96 x 10^(–23) grams/412.3276 cubic Å = 6.76 grams per cubic centimetre, noting it is likely to be less than this given stronger intralayer bonding. For comparison, the figure cited in the article is 6.35 ±0.15. Sandbh (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

At last, the full Pourbaix diagram of astatine

Page 33. Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Although I admit some scepticism about "At+" and "AtO+". Based on Gmelin et al., the former seems to be protonated hypoastatous acid H2OAt+, so not quite a solvated cation.) Double sharp (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per Gmelin suggestion, maybe the latter also is protonated astatous acid [H2AtO2]+? Double sharp (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Astateen" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Astateen. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#Astateen until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 17:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Astitene" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Astitene. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#Astitene until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 17:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bombarding?

Is "bombarding" really a scientific term that can be used at the end of the article, right at the end of the lead, before the subsections? FikaMedHasse (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's the standard term in this context, yes. DMacks (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. I just found the phrase a bit comical. FikaMedHasse (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes science adopts lay-language words and uses interesting shades of meaning or things that sound funny. In this case, an early ref is Enrico Fermi's "Artificial Radioactivity produced by Neutron Bombardment" article from 1934 (doi:10.1098/rspa.1934.0168). List of unusual units of measurement is a good read. DMacks (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]