User talk:JWB/Nuclide chart with skew 1

This is your best chart, because the entire chart relates the stable isotopes and the radioactivity data to both the Atomic No Z (I call it the deuteron number), and the excess neutron(A-2Z) number; which seem to be the most important factors related to the occurrence of stable and long lived isotopes occurring within the chart. Now if we can accurately expand the information on up into the post radium (>Z=88) area, we can then get enough information to build models in that area with an improved degree of configuration indication information.WFPM (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your showing the symbols of the elements, for human recognition purposes. But I think you ought to still include the the element number, because it has more significance related to the properties of the atom than the name. But that doesn't mean that I believe in "magic numbers". But it helps in understanding the structure.WFPM (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)And the element numbers ought to extend to the number 120, in spite of the IUPAC periodic table.[reply]

Your horizontal numbering system is consistent with the A-2Z extra neutron numbering system. But probably should be extended to include the number 60. And you cant leave a space gap between successive elements if you want to show stability trend lines.

After you get through with this chart you're going to better appreciate the ability of the Janet periodic table to indicate the proper interrelationships between the series (plural) and the elements.WFPM (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is to be noticed that as the atomic number increases, the less unstable nuclides are associated with increased number of excess neutrons. However, the stability trend lines tend to run off the top of the chart at 60+ before they get to the end of the chart at Z=120. So what is being looked for are isotopes with long instability halflives with a minimum number of excess neutrons. And certain isotope candidates look favorable for that type of capability.WFPM (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)And if science wants to pursue this goal without paying attention to the indications of my nuclear models, see Talk:Nuclear model, then all I can do is wish them luck. Because I'm not a Scientist, just an interested Engineer.WFPM (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)You might note that the attempted fusion efforts in this area involve a subsequent extra neutron energy dumping process which makes it hard to find candidates with a sufficient number of extra neutrons to accomplish that and still end up with an adequate number of extra neutrons for a long unstable existence lifetime.[reply]