From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Elements / Isotopes  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is also supported by the Isotope Taskforce.

Energy vs Energy per nucleon[edit]

Does it have the highest nuclear binding energy, or the highest nuclear binding energy per nucleon? Or both? Dark Formal (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Only the second. Read the article carefully about the per nucleon issue. Having a higher total binding energy PER NUCLEUS is just a function of number of particles. The total binding energy per atom goes up smoothly as you add particles, from hydrogen-1 right to the "end" of the periodic table (whereever that is). The heavier it is (the higher the atomic weight), the more binding energy it has. SBHarris 00:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought. To make it clear, I suggest the first line should read "...has the highest binding energy per nucleon of any known nuclide (8.7945 MeV)". The way it reads now, there is a conflict between the quantity named ("nuclear binding energy", which is defined for a whole nucleus) and the unit given (which is energy per nucleon). This is like saying "Hong Kong has the highest population of any city (17000 people per km^2)". I will make the change if there is no objection. Dark Formal (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do. SBHarris 03:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Contents lack Ni-62 info?[edit]

There seems to be a distinct lack of information about Nickel-62 in this Nickel-62 article, but an abundance of information about Iron-56. Perhaps this article should be re-titled Iron-56? Just a thought. (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

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 (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 (talkcontribs) 05:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)