Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
- Trillium 323 is an isotope of Trillium. Trillium should be the article and mention an isotope Trillium-323. --Bp 21:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The issue that's confusing to me is that the Trillium article has a table showing 323 as the atomic number, yet there's an article on a supposed isotope, Trillium 323. For example, the normal, most abundant isotope of carbon, atomic number 6, is carbon-12, with 6 protons and 6 neutrons, atomic weight 12. Carbon-13 would would still have an atomic number of 6, but would have 6 protons and 7 neutrons, atomic weight 13. If trillium's atomic number is indeed 323, as the Trillium article states (implying 323 protons and, likely, 323 neutrons, one ginormous atom with an atomic weight of 646), then how could there be an isotope of trillium with the atomic weight of 323? -- Renegade54 22:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think that atomic number is specultion based on the name Trillium 323. I doubt it ever is mentioned. That it's an isotope is probably speculation too, but it makes more sense than naming an element and then addding its numerical identity to the end. I mean Trillium would mean the element with atomic number X, so calling it Trillium X, is redundant. Still agree that it should be merged. --Bp 22:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a valid point, and I have no problem with separate pages if there are indeed two separate compounds. I'm not at all convinced that there are, though; it still appears to me that Trillium and Trillium 323 are the same substance, at least with the information provided here. If the commonly-traded isotope of trillium was trillium-323, then it would've very likely been referred to in casual speech simply as trillium, much as uranium-238 is casually referred to as "uranium". I myself don't have access to the various episodes referenced to check the usage. -- Renegade54 23:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)