Talk:Nuclide

Isomers
Quote: The mentioning of isomers in the first paragraph is misleading. It is also unnecessary since isomers are defined in the fourth paragraph. I do not understand the reference to IUPAC, where can this reference be found? The mixing of nuclides and nuclei is also misleading. A nuclide is a particular type of nucleus. HPaul 19:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that HPaul's above comment refers to my editing of the entry "Nuclide" on 3 April 2007, at 05:24. (It was an anonymous editing, because I had no user name at that time.) The reference HPaul wants to see is found at http://goldbook.iupac.org/N04257.html. I think, the editing I did made the article better, but I leave it to the editors or HPaul to decide whether they wish to reconsider it or not. If they want to contact me, here is my homepage where they can find my e-addresses: http://www.chem.elte.hu/Sandor.Nagy/ NagyChemELTE 08:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

do you mean nuclei or nuclide ?
The article states Is then an isotope one of many nuclei, i.e., a nucleus? Jclerman (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "It can be used to distinguish isotopes among nuclei, as well as other properties listed below."
 * Isotope is most often used when describing chemical properties. One might have a cylinder of deuterium gas. Nuclide when describing nuclear properties, such as one might have in mass spectroscopy, so studying individual nuclei. Gah4 (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Isotope is most often used when describing chemical properties. One might have a cylinder of deuterium gas. Nuclide when describing nuclear properties, such as one might have in mass spectroscopy, so studying individual nuclei. Gah4 (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

which is the correct definition?
The M-W online defines
 * nuclide
 * a species of atom characterized by the constitution of its nucleus and hence by the number of protons, the number of neutrons, and the energy content

Jclerman (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

rewrite this paragraph, please!
AFter rewriting, the following paragraphs should be reinserted in the article.
 * I rewrote the first paragraph replacing upper left corner by a more mathematical nomenclaturish term. Please check it and correct it if needed:

A given nuclide is symbolized as follows: its mass number (number of nucleons) is noted as a pre-superscript and the atomic number (number of protons) as a pre-subscript of the corresponding chemical symbol: for example,

for the most common isotope of carbon. In earlier years, the mass number was written in the upper right corner. The atomic number may also be omitted, since it is uniquely defined by the element symbol: for example, Carbon. Where needed, the number of neutrons can be written in the lower left corner for clarity: for example,. This is normally omitted, as it can be deduced by subtracting the element number from the mass number.
 * I did not change this paragraph. PLease edit it before reinserting it in the article:

Jclerman (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's NagyChemELTE again
07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I corrected this entry in May 2007, then someone changed it back. A half year ago I checked it again and saw that someone did a good job. A few days ago I checked it again and found it confusing again. The nuclide was defined as a nuclear species, although the reference cited clearly said that it is an atomic species. The term isotope looked kind of "deprecated" from the text, although it is a correct term at the same level as the isotone and the isobar. The problem is not with the term itself but with its being overused. It would also look odd if someone used isobar instead of nuclide all the time. I also added a reference to an old IUPAP paper which is still a rather popular source of reference. It is to show that the use of the term nuclide in the sense "atomic species" is not the invention of chemists: it comes from physicists. I also added the etymology of isotone from that source.
 * My other reason for writing this is because I am Hungarian, and I am sure that my phrasing could be better. So you are welcome to correct my English. But please do not change back the sense "atomic species" to "nuclear species" because it is not my invention.
 * I also have a comment on the use of isotope, isomer, isotone and isobar which reflects my personal view and the way I am using these terms. Although IUPAC & IUPAP agree upon what should be understood by the term nuclide and also say that certain classes of nuclides are to be called isotopes, isotones, etc., it is nowhere mentioned that isotopes, isotones, etc. can only used in this sense. So when I am talking/writing about "nuclear species", I am using the terms isotope, isotone, etc. to refer to respective classes of them. In other words, in my opinion, isotope, isotone, etc. can refer to both atomic and nuclear subspecies (but it should be clear from the context which). On the other hand, nuclide (because it is defined so) is an atomic species. So if you mean nuclear species, you must write "nuclear species" to avoid confusion. --62.112.216.124 (talk)
 * If you will google the various web definitions of "nuclide" you will find that it is a type of atom which is DEFINED by its nuclear properties and nuclear energy state. Thus must be the case because Na and Na+ are the same nuclide; electron number doesn't matter. So it's an atomic species defined by nuclear properties: in an sense that makes it a nuclear species by definition, even if we're talking about various atoms and ions. S  B Harris 08:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Dr. Harris. From the phrasing of my sentences you must be aware of the fact that English is not my mother tongue. So it may be just a mistake from my side which I derived from biology that a species of something is a subset of the things referred to. So for me saying that the elephant is a species of animals or an animal species sounds correct, but saying that the the elephant is a trunk species sounds odd, even though the trunk is an essential part of an elephant.
 * I am also a nuclear chemist, which means that I am interested in both nuclear physics and chemistry. As an editor and writer of books/chapters in this field I prefer to use unambiguous technical terms that are accepted by a professional body (or two professional bodies in fact in this particular case) and therefore I try to give the most straightforward interpretation to definitions like that of the term nuclide no matter what interpretations occur in the different web pages. For me as a chemist, the default value for the charge of an atom is 0. This does not mean, of course, that I believe that 23Na and 23Na+ represent different nuclides. They do not. On the other hand, when the definition of nuclide was born, the atom was and still is considered as an assembly consisting of a nucleus with charge +Ze and Z electrons of charge -e each, all of which make up a neutral body. See the definition of the atom in the Orange Book. Even now when chemical terms like molecule and atom are being redefined — a molecule is either a molecule (in the old sense) or an atom; an atom is an atomic nucleus plus at least one electron — the terms nuclear species and atomic species would not be quite the same. Since a single nucleus is not an atom even in the loose sense quoted (which may or may not be accepted by IUPAC in the future), a nucleus cannot be considered a nuclide if you accept the IUPAC/IUPAP definition, because it is not an atomic species. If you insist on nuclear species being equal to nuclide, then a nucleus is a nuclide.
 * Note also that when I explain different nuclear terms to my students which are used in different sense in the literature (like nuclide, just to mention one example), I always explain them all the interpretations I know of, adding that I will use the term in such and such a sense, and I also explain why. So I am not at all against mentioning that the term nuclide is used (mostly by physicists) in a different sense too. But I am very much against to give only that interpretation in Wikipedia which differs from the official definition accepted by both professional bodies most concerned. --TheBFG (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC), alias NagyChemELTE (nasa@enternet.hu), alias Sandor Nagy

[outdent]I get your point that nuclides are all atomic species (due to being atoms of sometime, either ions or neutrals), even though defined by nuclear properties. But this seems a shame as it keeps us from talking about the various "naked" stripped electron nuclear species that occur in very hot plasmas (stars) and cosmic rays, which have no electrons, as "nuclides", even though they are certainly nuclear species. The world "nuclide" should have refered to nuclear-defined species of all kinds, else it's not nearly as useful a word otherwise! So you can see why it tends to get used in the not-strictly correct but more natural way. Feel free to fix it, though. You might want to make clear that when we say "nuclide" we're talking about atomic species (at least one electron) defined by nuclear properties. In fact I think I'll go add at least that much to the LEDE. S B Harris 17:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, but remember that this new concept of atom has not been accepted yet. And don't think that I'm that happy about everything IUPAC decides. They are people just like you and me. But (most of the time) I follow their decisions hoping that most people will also do that. That's all. And sorry, I have just realized that I misplaced the comment below. Please ignore it on your discussion page. Have a happy new year!--TheBFG (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The introduction of this article: "A nuclide (from nucleus) is an atomic species characterized by the specific constitution of its nucleus, i.e., by its number of protons Z, its number of neutrons N, and its energy state.[1] Thus, all nuclides are atoms that have at least one electron (though certain ions may be included), but naked nuclei (such as those occurring in cosmic rays and sufficiently hot plasmas) do not, in the technical sense, qualify for the term (these are instead naked nuclei of various nuclear species (elements)). In short, a nuclide is a general term for all nuclei with one or more electrons orbiting." ... is really misleading right after the first sentence. There it is wrong. And I think it is the result of a misinterpretation of the reference IUPAC. If you go there: http://goldbook.iupac.org/N04257.html you can read: "Nuclide: A species of atom, characterized by its mass number, atomic number and nuclear energy state, provided that the mean life in that state is long enough to be observable." What they mean by "nuclear energy state" is the state of the NUCLEUS (#%*#), the core, not that of the atom (potential electrons are not relevant at the moment). Think of the strong force that binds the nucleons. Also the core can be brought to an excited state, of which the energy is much higher than that compared to an excited atom (with an electron in a higher state). I am not a language expert, but given my background in nuclear reactor physics and nuclear chemistry I am very sure that when they say "Nuclide: A species of atom" they mean to say that you have many different nuclei which may behave chemically the same (are the same atoms), but are very different physically (different nuclei). Nuclei are atoms just as dogs are animals. You can also click on the picture given by IUPAC if you doubt it. They are talking about: fission yield, daughter product, decay chain, fission products, and many more nuclear related concepts - which have nothing to do with electrons (chamical reactions). In the same picture they also show that nuclei have: an atomic number (the number of protons), mass number (protons + neutrons) and mean life (the radioactive decay constant if the nucleus is an unstable one). The say - nothing - about electrons. Although electrons may be there, or not, when we talk about a nuclide we mean: the core, the center, or, if you will, the nucleus of an atom. For the sake of all people new to nuclear physics or nuclear chemistry: lets pleas give a better, clearer, more accurate, more didactic introduction. OnLiberty (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is easy enough to fix by qualifying "energy state" as nuclear energy state. Clearly IUPAC means things like Tc-99m to be different nuclide than Tc-99 (for example), and that's all. Note that the isotope designation by mass number Tc-99 doesn't differentiate between various Tc-99 nuclear isomers, which are all the same isotope of Tc, so this is a good example to say how nuclides are more specific in some cases than isotopes. As for the question of electrons, IUPAC didn't answer it directly, unless they also have a definition for "atom." So far as I know, IUPAC requires "atoms" to have at least one electron. Thus, the rest of definition is correct. S  B Harris 20:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Tc99 and Tc99m are different nuclei, and it is a good example. However, I still strongly disagree with respect to the claim that a nuclide needs at least one electron by definition. I don't like to look at definitions without using common-sense, but here is the IUPAC's definition of “atom”: "atom: Smallest particle still characterizing a chemical element. It consists of a nucleus of a positive charge (Z is the proton number and e the elementary charge) carrying almost all its mass (more than 99.9%) and Z electrons determining its size." They say that an atom has Z positive charges e in the nucleus _and_ Z number of electrons. So if you forget about common-sense and strictly hold up to this definition you must conclude that any ion is not an atom at all because the number of electrons does not equal the number of positive charges in the nucleus. Clearly this is not how their definition should be interpreted. They just give the definition of an atom - if it is in a neutral (unbound) state. The important part is "Smallest particle still characterizing a chemical element" for example: hydrogen and tritium chemically behave exactly the same, thus they are the same type of atom. More importantly, we are discussing the definition of "nuclide" and we should not care too much about the definition of “atom”. In general: definitions should be clear and to the point. Including a minimum number of electrons in the definition of “nuclide” is not at all to the point and can only lead to confusion. Why do you think it is not (explicitly) included in any other definition, on the web, nor in any academic textbook? Please forget about electrons and focus on the nucleus when a nuclide is discussed. OnLiberty (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

To JWB
I have not changed back anything after you rejected my corrections, but please consider the following comments.


 * I changed T½ to T½ not because I like better the way it looks, but because it is the symbol of a physical quantity (halflife) and therefore it is supposed to be written in italic style.


 * I don't mind that you eliminated “radioelement”, although it is used in the literature. It is also OK that you tried to solve the elimination by changing “francium” to “isotopes of francium”. But the whole sentence should be “Some of these nuclides are very short lived, such as isotopes of francium” rather than “Some of these isotopes are very short lived, such as isotopes of francium” because the word “these” refers to (the isotopes of) different elements. It is very good that the introduction tells the reader that the term isotope is often used in a loose sense. But it is not a good practice and it should not be followed in the rest of the article. (Please, check the rest of the article for the correct use of isotope/nuclide, because I will stop working on this article leaving the responsibility to you and to others who want to edit it.)


 * I changed the sentence “the isotope 238U (T½ = 4.5×109 a) of uranium occurs in nature, but the shorter-lived isotope, 235U (T½ = 0.7 ×109 a), is 138 times rarer”, because having read the first part of the sentence, the reader would anticipate that the shorter-lived isotope does not occur in nature. You may say that anybody who is able to interpret a multiple sentence must come to the conclusion (after some consideration) that 235U must also occur in nature. It is true. But the reader is either puzzled by the sentence and starts thinking about it (as I did), or skips the consideration part and fails to draw the correct conclusion. With my version (which may not be perfect) I tried to produce a sentence which does not need much considering. So I ask you to rephrase the sentence more carefully.--TheBFG (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

My main points were "radioelement" which is attested but not that commonly used and the first "s". I don't object to the three points you make above; please feel free to redo them. If italics for physical quantities is a dominant scientific convention, you might also want to bring that up for inclusion in Manual of Style or a subarticle. Manual of Style (mathematics) mentions italics for variables but I don't see a section specifically addressing physics. --JWB (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I will do that. --TheBFG (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Major name-switch proposal: isotope (mostly) trading with nuclide
Following the example of stable nuclide, I think it's time to modernize both the the isotope and nuclide articles, by putting most of the modern material (including the chart of nuclides) into the nuclide article, which will be the larger one. We can leave a little history in both places, with the full history of the "isotope" name remaining in the isotope article. But the modern term for nuclear species is "nuclide" and isotope is now a subset word which is more specific and refers properly to just the set of nuclides of a given element. So, as the more limited term, it should be the shorter article. Are there any objections if I (mostly) switch this material around? I'm going to leave a similar tag at the isotope article and perhaps at some chem-related wikiproject TALK pages, as well. S B Harris 02:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note. This is now proposed as a merger to a single article Isotope and nuclide with redirects from both isotope and nuclide. Since isotope was once a synonym of nuclide (which didn't exist) and now is a subset of it (the nuclides consist of the sets of isotopes of each element), we need to have one main article. The merge proposal is at talk:isotope. S  B Harris 23:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose as put forward at Talk:Isotope. Jheald (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

 Eliminate "Nuclide" article; replace it with a pointer to the "Isotope" article. The "Nuclide" article should be eliminated entirely, and become a pointer to a subsection of the more-useful article on "Isotope". Text of the "Nuclide" article should be edited (severely) and made into a subsection of the "Isotope" article -- for at least three reasons! As a trivial, anecdotal bit of evidence (i.e noting the unnecessary confusion introduced by the term "nuclide"), I should like to cite a passage from the most-recent edition of a "test-prep" book [See reference, below} which blatantly states that:  "Most atoms have an equal number of protons and neutrons, but some atoms can have varying numbers of neutrons. An atom with a different number of neutrons than protons is called an isotope."  Tripodics (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The term "isotope" is well understood, less confusing, and far more relevant that the term "nuclide" because it is the atomic number that determines nearly all of the important properties of an atom. The number of neutrons is usually of little consequence.  (Yes, I fully realize that unstable isotopes such as U235 and U238 may behave quite differently, in some configurations, but most interactions are unaffected by atomic mass!)
 * The "Nuclide" article has many editorial problems (and, I think, some technical errors).
 * Current education in chemistry and physics makes little use of the term "Nuclide" as it is both confusing to students and largely irrelevant.
 * The test question that is based on this nonsense rewards the student with a supposedly correct answer for the choice that has "3 protons, 3 neutrons".
 * To spare the (usually-reliable) source of this error from further embarrassment, I shall only cite the ISBN for the publication: ISBN 978-0-375-42994-1
 * Yike. You're making us all cringe, man. S  B Harris 07:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

N/Z stability plots fool us
This (and similar) plot conceals one important point. It conflates demonstrably unstable nuclei (with half life < $s$) and nuclei which properties are unknown. Any of its white cells can mean either of this two cases. For Z ≤ 82 this does not conflict with intuition: if there are no 21st-century data about such a nuclide, then it likely is fairly unstable, well beyond a nanosecond. But it is not true for transfermium (Z > 100) nuclides, where a nucleus with high neutron excess can be difficult to synthesize. Should these plots distinguish between unknown nuclides which are supposed to be unstable, and nuclides whose properties are unknown both experimentally and theoretically? There is a right triangle-like area above the upper-right tip of the “mapped area” where half-lives are unknown, but somewhere are expected to be long enough. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Kohmann quote in error
The introduction says (all emphasis mine) "Doctor Kohman originally suggested nuclide as referring to a "species of nucleus" defined by ...", and then goes on with "... was originally intended to focus on the nucleus". However, his article reads: "A species of atom characterized by the constitution of its nucleus ,...". Please correct. Bleckneuhaus (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Isotopes group all atoms of each element??
If this makes any sense at all, it is confusing: From the article, "The nuclide concept (referring to individual nuclear species) emphasizes nuclear properties over chemical properties, while the isotope concept (grouping all atoms of each element) emphasizes chemical over nuclear." The whole paragraph seems to be a mixture of confusion, irrelevance, and redundancy. 109.149.217.63 (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that most often isotope is used when talking about atoms and molecules, and nuclide when talking about nuclear reactions. For example, gaseous diffusion is used to separate isotopes, as UF6 molecules. Also, inside a nuclear weapon metallic fissile isotopes are used. On the other hand, when describing nuclear reactions, nuclides enter reactions independent of any electrons. Gah4 (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

changes?
There is a recent edit with no edit summary. I am close to reverting it, but give someone a chance to say what it is. Gah4 (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, the headings on the table with the recent edit don't seem to match the pattern of the numbers. Gah4 (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The question seems to be a change in the number of stable even A nuclides. That wouldn't seem something that changes very often. Gah4 (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The question seems to be a change in the number of stable even A nuclides. That wouldn't seem something that changes very often. Gah4 (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

electrons
I presume the atomic mass when describing isotopes is for a neutral atom. I am not sure, though, in the case of a nuclide, such as listed in the Chart of the nuclides, is it usual to consider a neutral atom, or fully ionized nucleus? (For example, that might be measured in mass spectrometry.) That is, both the (rest) mass of the electrons and their atomic binding energy, for ones known to enough digits? Should either nuclide or isotope mention this? Gah4 (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is usual to consider a neutral atom. Burzuchius (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

emphasizes nuclear properties over chemical properties
It seems to me that isotope should include any non-nuclear property, for example mechanical. Gaseous diffusion separates isotopes based on the mechanical property of mass, no nuclear reactions needed. I am not sure of its status, but there was discussion of laser isotope separation which would work on electron energy levels, which is seems change slightly. Otherwise, it is interesting that the mass of nuclides includes atomic electrons, otherwise a chemical property. Gah4 (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

What is the nuclide for the first four elements
Pls I need an answer 41.58.203.240 (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure exactly what the question is. Can you be more specific? ComplexRational (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * See Isotopes of hydrogen, Isotopes of helium, Isotopes of lithium, Isotopes of beryllium. Burzuchius (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

In case you're looking for the article on Isodiaphers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isodiapher&oldid=878615608

or,

https://web.archive.org/web/20190128202652/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isodiapher

It is unbelievable the amount of "energy", in the form of debates, put to delete a Wikipedia article. If only a quarter of that energy had been used to fix it by adding sources and expanding it... Some people experiment a perverse satisfaction from destruction.

A similar article, but not the same, from an external source: https://protonstalk.com/atom/isodiaphers/

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, if you believe sufficient sourcing exists to sustain an article that is more substantial than a dictionary definition, you could write a new article. Those were the primary concerns when it was nominated for deletion. Complex / Rational  21:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Isotone and Isobar Examples Mixed
The examples in the “Types of Nuclides” table for isotones and isobars are switched. This means they are currently incorrect, but if they are switched it will be fine. 71.187.195.75 (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

List of isodiaphers that are beta-stable
Note: in the following table, a~b means every number in the range [a,b], and ab means every even number in the range [a,b].

Note that 264Rf is not yet discovered, but it is almost surely to be the sixth and last beta-stable nuclide with neutron excess 56.

Predicted continuation of this table: 129.104.241.214 || talk 22:51, 26 January 2024 || UTC

Notable nuclides
Nuclides that have their own page: