Nobelium

Nobelium, ₁₀₂No

Nobelium
Pronunciation	/noʊˈbiːliəm/ (noh-BEE-lee-əm) /noʊˈbɛliəm/ ⓘ (noh-BEL-ee-əm)
Mass number	[259]
Nobelium in the periodic table
Hydrogen Helium Lithium Beryllium Boron Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Fluorine Neon Sodium Magnesium Aluminium Silicon Phosphorus Sulfur Chlorine Argon Potassium Calcium Scandium Titanium Vanadium Chromium Manganese Iron Cobalt Nickel Copper Zinc Gallium Germanium Arsenic Selenium Bromine Krypton Rubidium Strontium Yttrium Zirconium Niobium Molybdenum Technetium Ruthenium Rhodium Palladium Silver Cadmium Indium Tin Antimony Tellurium Iodine Xenon Caesium Barium Lanthanum Cerium Praseodymium Neodymium Promethium Samarium Europium Gadolinium Terbium Dysprosium Holmium Erbium Thulium Ytterbium Lutetium Hafnium Tantalum Tungsten Rhenium Osmium Iridium Platinum Gold Mercury (element) Thallium Lead Bismuth Polonium Astatine Radon Francium Radium Actinium Thorium Protactinium Uranium Neptunium Plutonium Americium Curium Berkelium Californium Einsteinium Fermium Mendelevium Nobelium Lawrencium Rutherfordium Dubnium Seaborgium Bohrium Hassium Meitnerium Darmstadtium Roentgenium Copernicium Nihonium Flerovium Moscovium Livermorium Tennessine Oganesson Yb ↑ No ↓ (Uph) mendelevium ← nobelium → lawrencium
Discovery	Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (1965)
Isotopes of nobelium v e
Main isotopes[5] Decay abun­dance half-life (t1/2) mode pro­duct 253No synth 1.6 min α55% 249Fm β+ 45% 253Md 254No synth 51 s α90% 250Fm β+10% 254Md 255No synth 3.5 min α61% 251Fm β+39% 255Md 257No synth 25 s α99% 253Fm β+1% 257Md 259No synth 58 min α75% 255Fm ε25% 259Md SF<10% –
Category: Nobelium view talk edit | references

Nobelium is a

Chemistry experiments have confirmed that nobelium behaves as a heavier homolog to ytterbium in the periodic table. The chemical properties of nobelium are not completely known: they are mostly only known in aqueous solution. Before nobelium's discovery, it was predicted that it would show a stable +2 oxidation state as well as the +3 state characteristic of the other actinides; these predictions were later confirmed, as the +2 state is much more stable than the +3 state in aqueous solution and it is difficult to keep nobelium in the +3 state.

In the 1950s and 1960s, many claims of the discovery of nobelium were made from laboratories in

This section is an excerpt from Superheavy element § Introduction.[edit]

Synthesis of superheavy nuclei

A superheavy^[b] atomic nucleus is created in a nuclear reaction that combines two other nuclei of unequal size^[c] into one; roughly, the more unequal the two nuclei in terms of mass, the greater the possibility that the two react.^[11] The material made of the heavier nuclei is made into a target, which is then bombarded by the beam of lighter nuclei. Two nuclei can only fuse into one if they approach each other closely enough; normally, nuclei (all positively charged) repel each other due to electrostatic repulsion. The strong interaction can overcome this repulsion but only within a very short distance from a nucleus; beam nuclei are thus greatly accelerated in order to make such repulsion insignificant compared to the velocity of the beam nucleus.^[12] The energy applied to the beam nuclei to accelerate them can cause them to reach speeds as high as one-tenth of the speed of light. However, if too much energy is applied, the beam nucleus can fall apart.^[12]

Coming close enough alone is not enough for two nuclei to fuse: when two nuclei approach each other, they usually remain together for approximately 10⁻²⁰ seconds and then part ways (not necessarily in the same composition as before the reaction) rather than form a single nucleus.^[12][13] This happens because during the attempted formation of a single nucleus, electrostatic repulsion tears apart the nucleus that is being formed.^[12] Each pair of a target and a beam is characterized by its cross section—the probability that fusion will occur if two nuclei approach one another expressed in terms of the transverse area that the incident particle must hit in order for the fusion to occur.^[d] This fusion may occur as a result of the quantum effect in which nuclei can tunnel through electrostatic repulsion. If the two nuclei can stay close for past that phase, multiple nuclear interactions result in redistribution of energy and an energy equilibrium.^[12]

External videos
Visualization of unsuccessful nuclear fusion, based on calculations from the Australian National University[15]

The resulting merger is an excited state^[16]—termed a compound nucleus—and thus it is very unstable.^[12] To reach a more stable state, the temporary merger may fission without formation of a more stable nucleus.^[17] Alternatively, the compound nucleus may eject a few neutrons, which would carry away the excitation energy; if the latter is not sufficient for a neutron expulsion, the merger would produce a gamma ray. This happens in approximately 10⁻¹⁶ seconds after the initial nuclear collision and results in creation of a more stable nucleus.^[17] The definition by the IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party (JWP) states that a chemical element can only be recognized as discovered if a nucleus of it has not decayed within 10⁻¹⁴ seconds. This value was chosen as an estimate of how long it takes a nucleus to acquire its outer electrons and thus display its chemical properties.^[18][e]

Decay and detection

The beam passes through the target and reaches the next chamber, the separator; if a new nucleus is produced, it is carried with this beam.^[20] In the separator, the newly produced nucleus is separated from other nuclides (that of the original beam and any other reaction products)^[f] and transferred to a surface-barrier detector, which stops the nucleus. The exact location of the upcoming impact on the detector is marked; also marked are its energy and the time of the arrival.^[20] The transfer takes about 10⁻⁶ seconds; in order to be detected, the nucleus must survive this long.^[23] The nucleus is recorded again once its decay is registered, and the location, the energy, and the time of the decay are measured.^[20]

Stability of a nucleus is provided by the strong interaction. However, its range is very short; as nuclei become larger, its influence on the outermost nucleons (protons and neutrons) weakens. At the same time, the nucleus is torn apart by electrostatic repulsion between protons, and its range is not limited.^[24] Total binding energy provided by the strong interaction increases linearly with the number of nucleons, whereas electrostatic repulsion increases with the square of the atomic number, i.e. the latter grows faster and becomes increasingly important for heavy and superheavy nuclei.^[25][26] Superheavy nuclei are thus theoretically predicted^[27] and have so far been observed^[28] to predominantly decay via decay modes that are caused by such repulsion: alpha decay and spontaneous fission.^[g] Almost all alpha emitters have over 210 nucleons,^[30] and the lightest nuclide primarily undergoing spontaneous fission has 238.^[31] In both decay modes, nuclei are inhibited from decaying by corresponding energy barriers for each mode, but they can be tunnelled through.^[25][26]

Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear Reactions in JINR. The trajectory within the detector and the beam focusing apparatus changes because of a dipole magnet in the former and quadrupole magnets in the latter.^[32]

Alpha particles are commonly produced in radioactive decays because mass of an alpha particle per nucleon is small enough to leave some energy for the alpha particle to be used as kinetic energy to leave the nucleus.

liquid drop model thus suggested that spontaneous fission would occur nearly instantly due to disappearance of the fission barrier for nuclei with about 280 nucleons.^[26][36] The later nuclear shell model suggested that nuclei with about 300 nucleons would form an island of stability in which nuclei will be more resistant to spontaneous fission and will primarily undergo alpha decay with longer half-lives.^[26][36] Subsequent discoveries suggested that the predicted island might be further than originally anticipated; they also showed that nuclei intermediate between the long-lived actinides and the predicted island are deformed, and gain additional stability from shell effects.^[37] Experiments on lighter superheavy nuclei,^[38] as well as those closer to the expected island,^[34] have shown greater than previously anticipated stability against spontaneous fission, showing the importance of shell effects on nuclei.^[h]

Alpha decays are registered by the emitted alpha particles, and the decay products are easy to determine before the actual decay; if such a decay or a series of consecutive decays produces a known nucleus, the original product of a reaction can be easily determined.[i] (That all decays within a decay chain were indeed related to each other is established by the location of these decays, which must be in the same place.)^[20] The known nucleus can be recognized by the specific characteristics of decay it undergoes such as decay energy (or more specifically, the kinetic energy of the emitted particle).^[j] Spontaneous fission, however, produces various nuclei as products, so the original nuclide cannot be determined from its daughters.^[k]

The information available to physicists aiming to synthesize a superheavy element is thus the information collected at the detectors: location, energy, and time of arrival of a particle to the detector, and those of its decay. The physicists analyze this data and seek to conclude that it was indeed caused by a new element and could not have been caused by a different nuclide than the one claimed. Often, provided data is insufficient for a conclusion that a new element was definitely created and there is no other explanation for the observed effects; errors in interpreting data have been made.^[l]

Discovery

The discovery of element 102 was a complicated process and was claimed by groups from

In 1959, the Swedish team attempted to explain the Berkeley team's inability to detect element 102 in 1958, maintaining that they did discover it. However, later work has shown that no nobelium isotopes lighter than ²⁵⁹No (no heavier isotopes could have been produced in the Swedish experiments) with a half-life over 3 minutes exist, and that the Swedish team's results are most likely from thorium-225, which has a half-life of 8 minutes and quickly undergoes triple alpha decay to polonium-213, which has a decay energy of 8.53612 MeV. This hypothesis is lent weight by the fact that thorium-225 can easily be produced in the reaction used and would not be separated out by the chemical methods used. Later work on nobelium also showed that the divalent state is more stable than the trivalent one and hence that the samples emitting the alpha particles could not have contained nobelium, as the divalent nobelium would not have eluted with the other trivalent actinides.^[49] Thus, the Swedish team later retracted their claim and associated the activity to background effects.^[52]

In 1959, the team continued their studies and claimed that they were able to produce an isotope that decayed predominantly by emission of an 8.3 MeV alpha particle, with a half-life of 3 s with an associated 30% spontaneous fission branch. The activity was initially assigned to ²⁵⁴102 but later changed to ²⁵²102. However, they also noted that it was not certain that element 102 had been produced due to difficult conditions.^[49] The Berkeley team decided to adopt the proposed name of the Swedish team, "nobelium", for the element.^[52]

²⁴⁴
₉₆Cm
+ ¹²
₆C
→ ²⁵⁶
₁₀₂No
^*
→ ²⁵²
₁₀₂No
+ 4 ¹
₀
n

Meanwhile, in Dubna, experiments were carried out in 1958 and 1960 aiming to synthesize element 102 as well. The first 1958 experiment bombarded plutonium-239 and -241 with oxygen-16 ions. Some alpha decays with energies just over 8.5 MeV were observed, and they were assigned to ^251,252,253102, although the team wrote that formation of isotopes from lead or bismuth impurities (which would not produce nobelium) could not be ruled out. While later 1958 experiments noted that new isotopes could be produced from mercury, thallium, lead, or bismuth impurities, the scientists still stood by their conclusion that element 102 could be produced from this reaction, mentioning a half-life of under 30 seconds and a decay energy of (8.8 ± 0.5) MeV. Later 1960 experiments proved that these were background effects. 1967 experiments also lowered the decay energy to (8.6 ± 0.4) MeV, but both values are too high to possibly match those of ²⁵³No or ²⁵⁴No.^[49] The Dubna team later stated in 1970 and again in 1987 that these results were not conclusive.^[49]

In 1961, Berkeley scientists claimed the discovery of element 103 in the reaction of californium with boron and carbon ions. They claimed the production of the isotope ²⁵⁷103, and also claimed to have synthesized an alpha decaying isotope of element 102 that had a half-life of 15 s and alpha decay energy 8.2 MeV. They assigned this to ²⁵⁵102 without giving a reason for the assignment. The values do not agree with those now known for ²⁵⁵No, although they do agree with those now known for ²⁵⁷No, and while this isotope probably played a part in this experiment, its discovery was inconclusive.^[49]

Work on element 102 also continued in Dubna, and in 1964, experiments were carried out there to detect alpha-decay daughters of element 102 isotopes by synthesizing element 102 from the reaction of a uranium-238 target with neon ions. The products were carried along a silver catcher foil and purified chemically, and the isotopes ²⁵⁰Fm and ²⁵²Fm were detected. The yield of ²⁵²Fm was interpreted as evidence that its parent ²⁵⁶102 was also synthesized: as it was noted that ²⁵²Fm could also be produced directly in this reaction by the simultaneous emission of an alpha particle with the excess neutrons, steps were taken to ensure that ²⁵²Fm could not go directly to the catcher foil. The half-life detected for ²⁵⁶102 was 8 s, which is much higher than the more modern 1967 value of (3.2 ± 0.2) s.^[49] Further experiments were conducted in 1966 for ²⁵⁴102, using the reactions ²⁴³Am(¹⁵N,4n)²⁵⁴102 and ²³⁸U(²²Ne,6n)²⁵⁴102, finding a half-life of (50 ± 10) s: at that time the discrepancy between this value and the earlier Berkeley value was not understood, although later work proved that the formation of the isomer ^250mFm was less likely in the Dubna experiments than at the Berkeley ones. In hindsight, the Dubna results on ²⁵⁴102 were probably correct and can be now considered a conclusive detection of element 102.^[49]

One more very convincing experiment from Dubna was published in 1966 (though it was submitted in 1965), again using the same two reactions, which concluded that ²⁵⁴102 indeed had a half-life much longer than the 3 seconds claimed by Berkeley.^[49] Later work in 1967 at Berkeley and 1971 at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory fully confirmed the discovery of element 102 and clarified earlier observations.^[52] In December 1966, the Berkeley group repeated the Dubna experiments and fully confirmed them, and used this data to finally assign correctly the isotopes they had previously synthesized but could not yet identify at the time, and thus claimed to have discovered nobelium in 1958 to 1961.^[52]

²³⁸
₉₂U
+ ²²
₁₀Ne
→ ²⁶⁰
₁₀₂No
^*
→ ²⁵⁴
₁₀₂No
+ 6 ¹
₀
n

In 1969, the Dubna team carried out chemical experiments on element 102 and concluded that it behaved as the heavier homologue of ytterbium. The Russian scientists proposed the name joliotium (Jo) for the new element after Irène Joliot-Curie, who had recently died, creating an element naming controversy that would not be resolved for several decades, with each group using its own proposed names.^[52][54]

In 1992, the

In the periodic table, nobelium is located to the right of the actinide mendelevium, to the left of the actinide lawrencium, and below the lanthanide ytterbium. Nobelium metal has not yet been prepared in bulk quantities, and bulk preparation is currently impossible.^[59] Nevertheless, a number of predictions and some preliminary experimental results have been done regarding its properties.^[59]

The lanthanides and actinides, in the metallic state, can exist as either divalent (such as

The chemistry of nobelium is incompletely characterized and is known only in aqueous solution, in which it can take on the +3 or +2 oxidation states, the latter being more stable.^[50] It was largely expected before the discovery of nobelium that in solution, it would behave like the other actinides, with the trivalent state being predominant; however, Seaborg predicted in 1949 that the +2 state would also be relatively stable for nobelium, as the No²⁺ ion would have the ground-state electron configuration [Rn]5f¹⁴, including the stable filled 5f¹⁴ shell. It took nineteen years before this prediction was confirmed.^[64]

In 1967, experiments were conducted to compare nobelium's chemical behavior to that of terbium, californium, and fermium. All four elements were reacted with chlorine and the resulting chlorides were deposited along a tube, along which they were carried by a gas. It was found that the nobelium chloride produced was strongly adsorbed on solid surfaces, proving that it was not very volatile, like the chlorides of the other three investigated elements. However, both NoCl₂ and NoCl₃ were expected to exhibit nonvolatile behavior and hence this experiment was inconclusive as to what the preferred oxidation state of nobelium was.^[64] Determination of nobelium's favoring of the +2 state had to wait until the next year, when cation-exchange chromatography and coprecipitation experiments were carried out on around fifty thousand ²⁵⁵No atoms, finding that it behaved differently from the other actinides and more like the divalent alkaline earth metals. This proved that in aqueous solution, nobelium is most stable in the divalent state when strong oxidizers are absent.^[64] Later experimentation in 1974 showed that nobelium eluted with the alkaline earth metals, between Ca²⁺ and Sr²⁺.^[64] Nobelium is the only known f-block element for which the +2 state is the most common and stable one in aqueous solution. This occurs because of the large energy gap between the 5f and 6d orbitals at the end of the actinide series.^[65]

It is expected that the relativistic stabilization of the 7s subshell greatly destabilizes nobelium dihydride, NoH₂, and relativistic stabilisation of the 7p_1/2 spinor over the 6d_3/2 spinor mean that excited states in nobelium atoms have 7s and 7p contribution instead of the expected 6d contribution. The long No–H distances in the NoH₂ molecule and the significant charge transfer lead to extreme ionicity with a

Fourteen isotopes of nobelium are known, with

The half-lives of nobelium isotopes increase smoothly from ²⁵⁰No to ²⁵³No. However, a dip appears at ²⁵⁴No, and beyond this the half-lives of even-even nobelium isotopes drop sharply as spontaneous fission becomes the dominant decay mode. For example, the half-life of ²⁵⁶No is almost three seconds, but that of ²⁵⁸No is only 1.2 milliseconds.^[72][70][71] This shows that at nobelium, the mutual repulsion of protons poses a limit to the region of long-lived nuclei in the actinide series.^[74] The even-odd nobelium isotopes mostly continue to have longer half-lives as their mass numbers increase, with a dip in the trend at ²⁵⁷No.^[72][70][71]

Preparation and purification

The isotopes of nobelium are mostly produced by bombarding actinide targets (uranium, plutonium, curium, californium, or einsteinium), with the exception of nobelium-262, which is produced as the daughter of lawrencium-262.^[72] The most commonly used isotope, ²⁵⁵No, can be produced from bombarding curium-248 or californium-249 with carbon-12: the latter method is more common. Irradiating a 350 μg cm⁻² target of californium-249 with three trillion (3 × 10¹²) 73 MeV carbon-12 ions per second for ten minutes can produce around 1200 nobelium-255 atoms.^[72]

Once the nobelium-255 is produced, it can be separated out similarly as used to purify the neighboring actinide mendelevium. The recoil

References

1. ^
   ISBN 0-8493-0484-9
   .
2. ^
   doi:10.1016/0022-3697(76)90167-0
   .
3. ^ Dean, John A., ed. (1999). Lange's Handbook of Chemistry (15 ed.). McGraw-Hill. Section 4; Table 4.5, Electronegativities of the Elements.
4. doi:10.1021/jacs.8b09068
   .
5. ^
   doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abddae
   .
6. ^ Krämer, K. (2016). "Explainer: superheavy elements". Chemistry World. Retrieved 2020-03-15.
7. ^ "Discovery of Elements 113 and 115". Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Archived from the original on 2015-09-11. Retrieved 2020-03-15.
8. S2CID 127060181
   .
9. ISSN 0556-2813
   .
10. S2CID 123288075. Archived from the original
    (PDF) on 7 June 2015. Retrieved 20 October 2012.
11. ^ Subramanian, S. (28 August 2019). "Making New Elements Doesn't Pay. Just Ask This Berkeley Scientist". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 2020-01-18.
12. ^ ^{a b c d e f} Ivanov, D. (2019). "Сверхтяжелые шаги в неизвестное" [Superheavy steps into the unknown]. nplus1.ru (in Russian). Retrieved 2020-02-02.
13. ^ Hinde, D. (2017). "Something new and superheavy at the periodic table". The Conversation. Retrieved 2020-01-30.
14. doi:10.1016/0029-5582(59)90211-1
    .
15. ISSN 2100-014X
    .
16. ISBN 978-0-471-76862-3
    .
17. ^
    S2CID 28796927
    .
18. S2CID 95737691
    .
19. ^
    S2CID 99193729
    .
20. ^ ^{a b c d} Chemistry World (2016). "How to Make Superheavy Elements and Finish the Periodic Table [Video]". Scientific American. Retrieved 2020-01-27.
21. ^ Hoffman, Ghiorso & Seaborg 2000, p. 334.
22. ^ Hoffman, Ghiorso & Seaborg 2000, p. 335.
23. ^ Zagrebaev, Karpov & Greiner 2013, p. 3.
24. ^ Beiser 2003, p. 432.
25. ^ ^{a b} Pauli, N. (2019). "Alpha decay" (PDF). Introductory Nuclear, Atomic and Molecular Physics (Nuclear Physics Part). Université libre de Bruxelles. Retrieved 2020-02-16.
26. ^ ^{a b c d e} Pauli, N. (2019). "Nuclear fission" (PDF). Introductory Nuclear, Atomic and Molecular Physics (Nuclear Physics Part). Université libre de Bruxelles. Retrieved 2020-02-16.
27. ISSN 0556-2813
    .
28. ^ Audi et al. 2017, pp. 030001-129–030001-138.
29. ^ Beiser 2003, p. 439.
30. ^ ^{a b} Beiser 2003, p. 433.
31. ^ Audi et al. 2017, p. 030001-125.
32. S2CID 125849923
    .
33. ^ Beiser 2003, p. 432–433.
34. ^
    ISSN 1742-6596
    .
35. ^ Moller, P.; Nix, J. R. (1994). Fission properties of the heaviest elements (PDF). Dai 2 Kai Hadoron Tataikei no Simulation Symposium, Tokai-mura, Ibaraki, Japan. University of North Texas. Retrieved 2020-02-16.
36. ^
    doi:10.1088/2058-7058/17/7/31
    . Retrieved 2020-02-16.
37. PMID 25666065
    .
38. Bibcode:1989nufi.rept...16H
    .
39. S2CID 119531411
    .
40. S2CID 239775403
    .
41. ^ Howes, L. (2019). "Exploring the superheavy elements at the end of the periodic table". Chemical & Engineering News. Retrieved 2020-01-27.
42. ^
    Distillations
    . Retrieved 2020-02-22.
43. ^ "Популярная библиотека химических элементов. Сиборгий (экавольфрам)" [Popular library of chemical elements. Seaborgium (eka-tungsten)]. n-t.ru (in Russian). Retrieved 2020-01-07. Reprinted from "Экавольфрам" [Eka-tungsten]. Популярная библиотека химических элементов. Серебро – Нильсборий и далее [Popular library of chemical elements. Silver through nielsbohrium and beyond] (in Russian). Nauka. 1977.
44. ^ "Nobelium - Element information, properties and uses | Periodic Table". Royal Society of Chemistry. Retrieved 2020-03-01.
45. ^ ^{a b} Kragh 2018, pp. 38–39.
46. ^ Kragh 2018, p. 40.
47. ^
    S2CID 95069384. Archived
    (PDF) from the original on 25 November 2013. Retrieved 7 September 2016.
48. doi:10.1351/pac199769122471
    .
49. ^
    S2CID 195819585
    . (Note: for Part I see Pure and Applied Chemistry, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 879–886, 1991)
50. ^ ^{a b} Silva 2011, pp. 1636–7
51. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.107.1460
    .
52. ^
    ISBN 978-0-19-960563-7
    .
53. ^
    doi:10.1351/pac199365081815
    .
54. doi:10.1179/amb.1980.27.2.77
    .
55. ^
    doi:10.1351/pac199769122471
    .
56. ISBN 978-1-4020-3555-5
    .
57. ^ "Element 114 is Named Flerovium and Element 116 is Named Livermorium" (Press release). IUPAC. 30 May 2012. Archived from the original on 2 June 2012.
58. ISBN 978-1-4020-3555-5. Archived from the original
    (PDF) on 2010-07-17. Retrieved 2014-08-15.
59. ^ ^{a b c d e f} Silva 2011, p. 1639
60. ^ ^{a b} Silva 2011, pp. 1626–8
61. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.11.2836
    .
62. ISBN 978-0-8412-0568-0
    .
63. ISBN 978-1-4398-5511-9
    .
64. ^ ^{a b c d e f g h i j k l} Silva 2011, pp. 1639–41
65. ISBN 978-0-08-037941-8
    .
66. doi:10.1063/1.1446029
    .
67. PMID 19514720
    .
68. S2CID 97945150. Archived from the original
    (PDF) on 2020-02-15.
69. ^ Lide, David R. (editor), CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 84th Edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton (FL), 2003, section 10, Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics; Ionization Potentials of Atoms and Atomic Ions
70. ^ ^{a b c d e} "Nucleonica :: Web driven nuclear science".
71. ^
    doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2003.11.001
72. ^ ^{a b c d e f} Silva 2011, pp. 1637–8
73. ^ Kratz, Jens Volker (5 September 2011). The Impact of Superheavy Elements on the Chemical and Physical Sciences (PDF). 4th International Conference on the Chemistry and Physics of the Transactinide Elements. Retrieved 27 August 2013.
74. doi:10.1021/cen-v081n036.p178
    .
75. ^ ^{a b c d} Silva 2011, pp. 1638–9

Bibliography

• Audi, G.; Kondev, F. G.; Wang, M.; et al. (2017). "The NUBASE2016 evaluation of nuclear properties" (PDF). Chinese Physics C. 41 (3): 030001.
  doi:10.1088/1674-1137/41/3/030001
  .
• Beiser, A. (2003). Concepts of modern physics (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  OCLC 48965418
  .
• ISBN 978-1-78-326244-1
  .
• ISBN 978-3-319-75813-8
  .
• Silva, Robert J. (2011). "Chapter 13. Fermium, Mendelevium, Nobelium, and Lawrencium". In Morss, Lester R.; Edelstein, Norman M.; Fuger, Jean (eds.). The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements. Netherlands: Springer. pp. 1621–1651.
  ISBN 978-94-007-0210-3
  .
• Zagrebaev, V.; Karpov, A.; Greiner, W. (2013). "Future of superheavy element research: Which nuclei could be synthesized within the next few years?".
  S2CID 55434734
  .

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Nobelium.

• Chart of Nuclides Archived 2018-10-10 at the Wayback Machine. nndc.bnl.gov
• Los Alamos National Laboratory – Nobelium
• Nobelium at
  The Periodic Table of Videos
  (University of Nottingham)