Talk:P-nuclei

File:Srp-nuclei.png

Hello, I think the figure Srp-nuclei.png is wrong. See its talk page on Commons. Do ou agree? Pamputt (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the figure is correct but a bit confusing ... Pamputt (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another detailed paper

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.711.835&rep=rep1&type=pdf Double sharp (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link has already died :( 14.52.231.91 (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short-lived p-nuclei

If ⁹⁷Tc and ⁹⁸Tc are included, should ¹⁵⁰Gd and ¹⁵⁴Dy also be included? After all, their half-lives are at the same order of magnitude, and none of these four nuclides has long enough half-life to occur naturally even in trace amount (unlike ⁹²Nb and ¹⁴⁶Sm). 14.52.231.91 (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and maybe even ¹⁴⁸Gd too (also mentioned by this paper). Double sharp (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added ¹⁵⁰Gd and ¹⁵⁴Dy. I'll add a citation to the paper I linked, when I'm not on my phone. :) Double sharp (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Double sharp (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if ¹⁴⁸Gd is to be included, perhaps also ²⁰²Pb? 14.52.231.91 (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The definition says elements between Se and Hg. Otherwise ⁵³Mn and ²⁰⁵Pb should surely have been included... 103.166.228.86 (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is not ²⁰⁵Pb producible in the s-process? Double sharp (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, my bad 103.166.228.86 (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! 14.52.231.91 (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, are ⁹¹Nb, ⁹³Mo, ¹³⁷La, ¹⁵⁸Tb, ¹⁶³Ho, ¹⁹⁴Hg p-nuclei? All of them have a half-life longer than ¹⁴⁸Gd. (If we ignore the restriction 34≤Z≤80 then ²⁶Al, ²⁰⁸Bi and ²⁰⁹Po too) --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be if you include ¹⁴⁸Gd. Except ²⁶Al, because it is below the iron peak and hence should not fit into the s/r/p paradigm. Double sharp (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]