For those who might enjoy viewing a graphic representation of the combination of nucleons in all their varied isotopes see the following (segre) chart:
http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ another representation can be found at: http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/33_segre/segre.html Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com > > > Any way you axe the question, this particular magic Ox is unquestionably > no "babe"... closer to a flash of lightning, perhaps... > > There are so-called magic numbers of protons and neutrons in nuclei. > Elements in the periodic table which fit this criterion are particularly > stable: The numbers are: > > 2,8,20,28,50,82 and 126 > > Atomic nuclei consisting of such magic number of nucleons, either of > protons or neutrons or the combination of the two -- have a higher > average binding energy per nucleon than one would expect based upon > predictions from any of the semi-empirical mass-formula stability > calculations, and they are significantly more stable against nuclear > decay - by at least an order of magnitude (timewise) in most cases than > are similar non-magic species. Pythagoras was right - there is magic in > numbers. > > There is no element which can satisfy "triple stability" which would be > that the neutrons, protons, and the combination were all three magic. > > There are a few doubly stable elements: helium, oxygen, calcium. > > From a purely theoretical standpoint, then, one is led to wonder why > element 28, which is Nickel, does not have a stable isotope: 56Ni or why > nickel is not as common as iron (element 26), or why 54Fe is not the > most common isotope of iron. It should be - on paper, since the 28 > neutrons would be a favored magic number within the range of > excess-neutrons that this particular 'slot' on the periodic table should > have. > > In some asteroids, BTW, there is lots of nickel, occasionally more > nickel than iron. And in some the isotope ratio is highly warped over > what is found on earth. In fact all of these curiosities have an > inter-related underlying rationale, leading to an eventual understanding > of the role of Pythagorean-type 'magic'. > > In fact, in cosmology and in the supernova - 56 Ni is an important > species - but not on earth. And one reason that there is so much iron > wrt to nickel here goes back to that cosmic furnace situation, where > 56Ni decays to iron -- since the nickel 'slot' requires a greater number > of neutrons than protons for threshold stability. Do not confuse all of > this nickel-slot talk with a nickelodeon <g> even if it is only wastes 3 > minutes of your time. The magic part is overhwhelmed, so to speak, by > threshold slot parameters of the periodic table > > OK - Once it comes out of a strong gravity field, then - the 56Ni decays > to iron (or cobalt) making iron the most abundant metal around. In the > laboratory, 56Ni decays via electron capture with a 6-day half-life. > Even so, this is a factor of 18 times longer life than a similar > situation without the 'magic', such as 52Fe, for instance, which has a > half-life in hours. > > All of this rambling is offered as a preamble to another speculation > regarding oxygen, when in an intense arc, such that the result is a > temporary "quark soup" situation, so to speak. This might help explain > why lightning seems to be part of an energy anomaly, in some cases. > > ... or not. The following has just been dreampt up in the last few > minutes, and you can now have the opportunity to vet it. > > Back to that point about no element which can satisfy "triple stability" > which would be that the neutrons, protons, and the combination were all > three magic. There is only one possibility, in the entire panoply of > elements which even comes close to potential short-term triple stability > (even with inherent overall impossibility due to the 'slot' limitations) > and which would be extremely transitory even if it were real (which is > just a guess). And this scenario would be coming out of an intense arc > discharge, like lightning (or the supernova). > > 8 protons, 20 neutrons and 28 nucleons works on paper. The 20 neutral > particles, which are neutron-like, presents the situation which might > include hydrinos, IF there is such a particle) giving a total nucleus of > 28. Triple temporary stability even if the neutron imbalance is > impossible to sustain. > > That is the proposed temporary species. This would be a (highly > speculative) transitory nucleus which would surely have a lifetime of > much less than one second, but being in the category where triple > stability might be found in certain situations (i.e. an intense gravity > field) this albeit short lifetime - could nevertheless be far longer > than expected, and the resultant decay more intense than expected. > > ...or not ;-) > > Jones > > > > > > --- Steven Vincent Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://orionworks.com
