Talk:Oxygen-16
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Improvements Across The Article[edit]
This article is about oxygen,so it should belong to the high class section.But to be high class means important.Someone dare to improve?
Dwight25 04:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwight25 (talk • contribs)
Doubly magic?[edit]
I was curiously wandering through Wikipedia, as one does on a rainy day, and spent some time learning about Magic numbers, and learned that O-16 is doubly magic. It'd be great if this page was fleshed out a bit by someone with more knowledge.
- I'll do some research and work on the article sometime in the next few days. And I encourage you to do so as well! ComplexRational (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Binding energy[edit]
The excess energy and binding energy in this article seem wrong. I was not able to find a source for correct values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1AE9:24B:4600:690E:D898:5303:BB92 (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- The new values were indeed (mostly, as I changed the last two digits of one) correct, and I sourced them to {{AME2016 II}}. Thank you for noticing this. ComplexRational (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for finding the source. But the source seems to be using conventional electrical units that should probably be converted to new SI units before using them here.109.183.135.4 (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm...if that is so, every such value on Wikipedia would need to be updated, but more accurate measurements in future experiments will likely cause a greater change than the 2019 SI unit redefinition. In any case, we'll probably need to wait a while longer for the next major update (I think NUBASE2022?). ComplexRational (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- The difference seems to be comparable to the differences between sources for different isotopes. But there is some inconsistency in the used definition of binding energy. Some isotopes (like here) use binding energy per nucleon but other isotopes (like Carbon-12) use binding energy per atom. This should be either unified or the definition should be specified in the infobox.2001:1AE9:24B:4600:147A:C49B:912E:4B9F (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- The difference between conventional electrical units and new SI units should be less than 1 eV for the excess energy of oxygen-16. Only the last two decimal places would be affected by the change.2001:1AE9:24B:4600:147A:C49B:912E:4B9F (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- The difference seems to be comparable to the differences between sources for different isotopes. But there is some inconsistency in the used definition of binding energy. Some isotopes (like here) use binding energy per nucleon but other isotopes (like Carbon-12) use binding energy per atom. This should be either unified or the definition should be specified in the infobox.2001:1AE9:24B:4600:147A:C49B:912E:4B9F (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm...if that is so, every such value on Wikipedia would need to be updated, but more accurate measurements in future experiments will likely cause a greater change than the 2019 SI unit redefinition. In any case, we'll probably need to wait a while longer for the next major update (I think NUBASE2022?). ComplexRational (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for finding the source. But the source seems to be using conventional electrical units that should probably be converted to new SI units before using them here.109.183.135.4 (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)