Timeline for Island of Stability - Why not smash massive elements?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jun 13, 2017 at 16:42 | history | suggested | John | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Removing offensive text.
|
| Jun 13, 2017 at 16:24 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 13, 2017 at 16:42 | |||||
| Jun 8, 2017 at 22:48 | comment | added | The Garage Chemist | @Mithoron In short the bigger the nucleus the less stable the atom. The reason calcium 48 is used is because it is fairly light and so easier to accelerate to the required speeds, has lots of neutrons and reactions are more successful than when using other elements. The chances of synthesising super heavy elements would be too slim otherwise. | |
| Jun 7, 2017 at 21:35 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jun 7, 2017 at 21:53 | |||||
| Jun 7, 2017 at 16:41 | comment | added | Mithoron | Well, that's a lot of talking, but not a real answer. Simply we don't have nuclei with appropriate neutron count, that's it. | |
| Jun 7, 2017 at 3:07 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jun 7, 2017 at 7:02 | |||||
| Jun 7, 2017 at 2:37 | history | edited | Oscar Lanzi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 7 characters in body
|
| Jun 7, 2017 at 2:36 | history | edited | airhuff | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed a couple typos.
|
| Jun 7, 2017 at 2:32 | history | answered | Oscar Lanzi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |