Talk:Isotopes of neon

Neon-18 decay mode -- what does ε mean?

What does the ε mean in the first decay mode for Neon-18? Is that Electron Capture? (I thought Electron Capture was always abbreviated as "EC".) --Rogermw (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ε is another abbrevitaion for electron capture. I'll change it to EC, since that's more common. S B H arris 21:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neon-16 half-life

Why is the half life of Ne16 not given in seconds, contrary to the appeal for consistency above? The link to 'Isotopes of carbon' provides no enlightenment. treesmill (talk) 05:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neon-15

On 4/4/14 a paper was published with findings of Neon 15 as an unbound nucleus. The link:

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.132502

I have added the data to the chart on the article page but used the function that allows the row to remain hidden so that it is able to be reviewed/corrected before it is published properly. I'm not too au fait with nuclear physics (but have an interest in isotopes) but i hope someone can use what i have provided. 80.176.89.230 (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neon-17 decay mode doesn't add up

I am reading decay mode of β+,α to Carbon-13 but by may calculations it should be Nitrogen-7 with that decay mode. Is the decay mode incorrect, the product incorrect, or my calculations incorrect?Thomasdelbert (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I found another reference, Wolfram Alpha said it's Nitrogen-17, I'm changing it in the article.Thomasdelbert (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isotopes of neon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neon-33

I'm reverting the deletion of the entry for now, as it is listed in accordance with other isotope lists as a nuclide that is theorized but has not been observed; see, for example, Helium-2. It does have an ENSDF dataset which can be found here. Personally, I'd prefer to more clearly indicate purely theoretical nuclides, but that's not the format that appears to be in use across Wikipedia's isotope lists (in favor of a note below the table). All that said, I'd still like to discuss whether or not the entry should be removed or kept - just on the talk page. InkTide (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I don't think inclusion of nuclides that have not been observed experimentally is appropriate. Predictions are not necessarily consistent across different sources, and potentially the choice of which nuclides to include could be arbitrary, as some are theorized but are unlikely to be synthesized anytime soon.

I'd say if there's some experimental evidence, as in the case of helium-2 (diproton emission), we should include them in the big table, though negative experimental results (e.g., an unsuccessful synthesis attempt, which appears to be all we have for neon-33) are not enough. Nevertheless, detailed synthesis attempts, even if unsuccessful, can be discussed in the article text. ^Complex/_Rational 20:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. It does appear in NUBASE 2020 and much of the isotope data here is lifted almost wholesale from that (format included), but it's not the only purely theoretical nuclide that shows up in NUBASE 2020.

One thing I find interesting in this discussion is Helium-2 does not appear in NUBASE 2020, but does appear in Wikipedia's list of helium isotopes. I've been wading through the isotope pages for the last few days while attempting to construct a diagram of decay chains and I was struck by how often available datasets on nuclide properties appear to disagree with each other, so I can't just dismiss its inclusion as a result of standard model astrophysics requiring the isotope to exist - the isotope data I can find in general is all over the place in quality.

However, I do think that if we are to include Helium-2, it makes sense to include other purely theoretical nuclides (and their trend-extrapolated properties) in these tables, as NUBASE 2020 does, and vice-versa if those theoretical nuclides are included, Helium-2 should be included even though it doesn't appear in NUBASE 2020. Perhaps they should be suffixed with "#" like the extrapolated properties of some of the nuclides (such as the half-life of Neon-34)? InkTide (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notation

Allow me to ask this side question: how should enwiki notate theoretical isotopes? For starters, in the big table. Issues:

NUBASE2020: § Number of isotopes listed notes 218+45=263 unobserved, estimated ones. And IIRC, there is Trends in Neighboring Nuclei (TNN) § 3.1 and in AME is Trends from the Mass Surface (TMS). These are theoretical excercises to right? (both have no enwiki target section yet).

Sources: {{NUBASE2020}} and {{AME2020 II}} can be added by {{Isotopes table}} (header), § Parameter options, |refs=NUBASE2020. I propose to adopt: "all sources not NUBASE/AME2020 should be added inline, in-row". In column 1 ("nuclide") when general (with the isotope-id like "¹²³Xx^[1]"), or in data-specific column (say with half-life).
Table footnotes: [pls provide need & examples] eg <ref group="n" name="decay mode 1" />
Standard text: we can add standard text: "[theor]" or "theor", with standard footnote option in header (eg by |notes=theor, EC, m, ..).
Extra column: Should we add an extra column for this? Say, "notes". (Could also cover current "Historical names" data, &tc.).
Long term, table: In the longer term, I planned to have each isotope in a row-template. Could handle standardised data (like standard footnotes, 'stable', ..). Will respect all refs added. Alas, not soon.

-DePiep (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR

For theoretical isotopes

When include in biog table? - tbd
Sources: default NUBASE2020/AME2020II, by table header
Other sources: add to Big Table. (gathering, completeness); in ID-column or specialist. Can be used to write additional text: "<ref>Theoretical, claim made in 2021: {{cite web| ..}}</ref>"
Add like "(theor)" in row (exact format?)
Footnote: can be constructed, no standard yet (suggestions?).

-DePiep (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the list of isotopes so low on the page

there is a large black space between the top of the page and the list of isotopes. Can someone fix this Nat-The-Waffle (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nat-The-Waffle: Try zooming out or widening your display. I notice that the figure stacks on top of the table, which might be what you're seeing, when zooming in, though everything looks fine at my default zoom. ^Complex/_Rational 23:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Nat-The-Waffle (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]