 | This article is rated Start-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. |
Contradiction on nucleus mass and atomic mass of 60Ni and 62Ni? edit
60Ni and 62Ni switch places on lowest mass rankings. How can this be if they have the same number of electrons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.61.174 (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ni-60 is the low mass per nucleon winner when looking at the bare nucleus (start with that). But add a number of electrons (28) and you end up adding fewer PER NUCLEON to Ni-62 (28 added to 62 nucleons). So Ni-62 gets less of an "extra mass" electron handicap PER NUCLEON than Ni-60 (which gets the same 28 per only 60 nucleons), and Ni-62 ends up winning the low-mass per nucleon category when "dressed" as a neutral atom, because of that smaller handicap. SBHarris 19:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Article Clutter edit
This article has been cluttered with information about iron and reads too much like a debate about whether Ni-62 has the highest binding energy per nucleon or not. It should give important facts about the Ni-62 isotope, and not include debate or speculation about other isotopes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Positronics (talk • contribs) 05:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Meaningless sentence edit
"despite having a slightly higher binding energy in a way that has no effect on its binding energy" appears to be absolute nonsense. One of the instances of the words "binding energy" appear to be a mistake, and is actually referring to something other than binding energy.