Talk:Nuclide

message: 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)
thread_title: Isomers

message: 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)
thread_title:  which is the correct definition? 

message: 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, 
* I did not change this paragraph. PLease edit it before reinserting it in the article:
 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, . 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.
Jclerman (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrite this paragraph, please! 

message: 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)
replies: text: * OK, I will do that. --TheBFG (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  To JWB 

message: 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. SBHarris 02:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. SBHarris 23:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yike. You're making us all cringe, man. SBHarris 07:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major name-switch proposal: [[isotope]] (mostly) trading with [[nuclide]] 

message: This (and similar) plot conceals one important point. It conflates demonstrably unstable nuclei (with half life < ) 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)
thread_title:  ''N/Z'' stability plots fool us 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Kohmann quote in error 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Isotopes group all atoms of each element?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: It is usual to consider a neutral atom. Burzuchius (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  electrons 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ''emphasizes nuclear properties over chemical properties'' 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  In case you're looking for the article on Isodiaphers. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Isotone and Isobar Examples Mixed 

message: Nuclides that have their own page:
Nuclide	A  	Z 	N
2H     	2  	1 	1
3H     	3  	1 	2
3He    	3  	2 	1
4He    	4  	2 	2
8Be    	8  	4 	4
10Be   	10 	4 	6
12C    	12 	6 	6
13C    	13 	6 	7
14C    	14 	6 	8
13N    	13 	7 	6
16O    	16 	8 	8
17O    	17 	8 	9
18O    	18 	8 	10
18F    	18 	9 	9
26Al   	26 	13	13
36Cl   	36 	17	19
37Cl   	37 	17	20
40K    	40 	19	21
48Ca   	48 	20	28
44Sc   	44 	21	23
55Fe   	55 	26	29
56Fe   	56 	26	30
60Co   	60 	27	33
62Ni   	62 	28	34
64Cu   	64 	29	35
79Se   	79 	34	45
85Kr   	85 	36	49
82Rb   	82 	37	45
89Sr   	89 	38	51
90Sr   	90 	38	52
90Y    	90 	39	51
99Tc   	99 	43	56
99mTc  	99 	43	56
111In  	111	49	62
123I   	123	53	70
125I   	125	53	72
129I   	129	53	76
131I   	131	53	78
135Xe  	135	54	81
137Cs  	137	55	82
147Sm  	147	62	85
170Tm  	170	69	101
192Ir  	192	77	115
198Au  	198	79	119
209Bi  	209	83	126
210Po  	210	84	126
222Rn  	222	86	136
223Ra  	223	88	135
226Ra  	226	88	138
225Ac  	225	89	136
232Th  	232	90	142
232U   	232	92	140
233U   	233	92	141
234U   	234	92	142
235U   	235	92	143
236U   	236	92	144
238U   	238	92	146
238Pu  	238	94	144
239Pu  	239	94	145
240Pu  	240	94	146
241Pu  	241	94	147
242Pu  	242	94	148
244Pu  	244	94	150
241Am  	241	95	146
 129.104.241.214 (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable nuclides