File talk:Table isotopes en.svg

These nuclides can alpha decay:

Nd-145, Sm-149, Eu-151, Pt-192, Pb-208, Bi-209

But the form said that they are stable!

While conceptually useful, this figure isn’t entirely accurate. Many elements above 82 (Mercury) have stable isotopes and should be marked by a black dot. I suspect there are other inaccuracies in the details. Cuhlik (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Z=82 is lead, not mercury, and is indeed the highest element with stable isotopes. Pb-208 is not known (only suspected) to alpha decay. And Bi (Z=83) is not shown to have any stable isotopes. Nothing wrong with the table there, AFAICS. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The table shows Ni-63 as stable, which it isn't

Tin errors

The table only gives 7 stable isotopes for tin (Z=50), contradicting the element's article, which gives 10 stable isotopes. It seems Sn-112, 122 and 124 are mislabeled as decaying in this table (Sn-114 to 120 are 7 consecutive stable isotopes, which fits the 7 consecutive black squares in this table at Z=50). Also, tellurium has 6 stable elements, the table only gives 4.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More errors

There are 5 stable Isotopes of Ca (A=20): those with N=20, 22, 23, 24, 26. Furthermore Ca-28 ist quasi-stable (Half life 10**19 yrs).

The magic numbers are 2, 8, 20, 28, … These should be marked Wassermaus (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better data

This image contains some real nonsense, including pairs of elements it claims beta-decay into each other (Ar-36 ↔ Cl-36 and Ca-40 ↔ K-40).

File:DecayModeNuDat2.png seems to be more sensible at a first glance, but unfortunately it's a PNG.

I've used the current data from [1] to create a a spreadsheet table showing primary mode of decay (with electron capture treated as equivalent to β⁺), maybe someone wants to try their hand at revising this image.

xmath (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]