Template talk:Nuclides/doc

You need to point out that the ordinate numbers of the chart refer to the number of excess neutrons contained by the nucleus beyond that number required to create an A = 2Z basic nucleus. Then the rest of the isotopes of that element are shown with relation to their stability existence/and half-life time period values.WFPM (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Its fully explained.
 * And again:
 * Just granpa (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just granpa (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just granpa (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well okay!! But what I guess I'm really concerned with is the "lack of emphasis", which has to do with the difference between the terms "extra neutron value" and "N - P value", with the second being a "mathematical" value without emphasis and first being an important factor related to the atom's stability properties. And the 2 most important factors in these matters seem to be the Z value (or maybe the 2Z value) and then the "extra neutron" or "(N - P value)". Because what you do building the models is to first build the A = 2Z basic model, and then try to find data to support the addition of the extra neutrons in their appropriate location per the data.WFPM (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC) See Talk:Nuclear model.

Notice that your best chart for showing the stability trend lines (with A = 3Z - an even number) is your all nuclides chart with the horizontal ordinate being the N - Z value. These diagonal lines show that the advancement tendency of the successive elements is to increase by 3 nucleons (say a deuteron plus an extra neutron) for a distance along the diagonal trend line, and then have to change, usually due to Beta - radioactivity, to a new trend line with 2 less extra neutrons. However Isotopes with less than the trend line amount can either change by EC (electron capture) or B + emission to get up to the trend line or by the emission of an Alpha (2He4) particle, in which case they drop back by 2 elements. Thus the N - Z chart seems to be the more significant chart.WFPM (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Your every 4th nuclide chart also shows this zigzag pattern of advancement of the stability trend, but also shows that it doesn't start until approximately Z = 12.


 * I'm glad that someone finds it useful.
 * Just granpa (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't be discouraged! I've had my Talk:Nuclear model contribution for more than 2 years. And I thought I was going to turn the world around!! And the chart you created is essentially the same at that I had on the wall in the image, but I was afraid to discourse on it because I might be cited for OR so I had to wait until JWB and you and others did it. But I think we will slowly get more attention, because we must be dealing with real 3 dimensional entities, and their properties. And the more the information gets organized and presented, the better!!WFPM (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Also a granpa!

Since you have spent the time and effort to make all those charts, you might be interested in the lackadaisical presentation of the same kind of index chart by the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL.gov) as a feature called the "Map of the nuclides". In those they show the stable elements in boxes like you do. except without the correct relationship between elements. This fouls up the apparent organization of the stable element boxes, but I have called there attention to this and they haven't done anything.WFPM (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

http://t2.lanl.gov/data/map.html