Talk:Isotopes of fluorine

This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Fluorine, due to size or style considerations.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Fluorine-13?

Is there data yet 24.115.255.37 (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there's no more recent data that I'm aware of; the half-life is still unknown. ComplexRational (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we consider https://www-nds.iaea.org/relnsd/vcharthtml/VChartHTML.html to be reliable? That lists Fluorine 13 with a half-life of 450*10^-24 seconds, or 450 yoctoseconds, which would make it the most unstable fluorine isotope by about 50 yoctoseconds. InkTide (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A decay width of 1.01(27) MeV [t_1/2 = 0.45+0.16
−0.10 zs] is measured for the observed 5/2+ state; a 1/2+ state is predicted as well, but has not been observed. Should I list this in the table with the 5/2+ state only? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorine-18 trace?

How could there be trace ¹⁸F? 103.166.228.86 (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From cosmic rays: ¹⁸O(p,n)¹⁸F produces it, as well as spallation of atmospheric Ar. Double sharp (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks! 103.166.228.86 (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too much house style with nuclear chemistry notation and symbology

I just don't like the IUPAC "house" or the drug-and-nuke-dealer notation with weird backwards superscript and left-hand subscripts for isotopes or nuclides etc. Numeric ranges or measurement uncertainties should also be indicated clearly as such with plus-or-minus symbols for a general audience. A general encyclopedia needs to focus on presenting any particular subject to a non-expert general audience and avoid obscure symbology and overly specialized notation. Point people to the qualified or professed expert sources online for more advanced reading, but maintain NPOV and don't buy into the house. We're losing too much money at the casino here. Justina Colmena ~biz (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I completely agree that Wikipedia articles should be understandable to non-expert audiences, the notation used here is the standard notation found in published sources (not, as you put it, house style; its widespread use also means there are no WP:NPOV concerns) and is quite unambiguous. The explanatory notes in the table and infoboxes in individual isotope pages define symbols used later in the articles, and I believe it's very clear that the superscript for each isotope in each row is the sum of its atomic (proton) number and neutron number. If you believe prose anywhere is too technical, feel free to edit it for understandability, but the fact that you dislike the notation does not justify changing it. ^Complex/_Rational 15:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]