Editing Talk:2860: Decay Modes

<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.-->
Omega Decay has a didtinctive Star Trek Voyager vibe, I believe... ;-) https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Omega_molecule [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.70|162.158.203.70]] 23:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

:There are a few things Omega could relate to: Rick and Morty Omega Device https://rickandmorty.fandom.com/wiki/Omega_Device, Galaxy Quest Omega 13 Device https://galaxyquest.fandom.com/wiki/The_Omega_13_Device [[Special:Contributions/172.68.126.134|172.68.126.134]] 02:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

:Omega voyager vibe? Nah, Voyager just used a cool sounding name. They share a root, but this isn't depending on ST:VOY [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.47|172.69.195.47]] 09:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

There appears to be an issue- the ''fungal decay'' and ''sea peoples'' are missing. I don't remember what they were! Help! 
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.226|162.158.159.226]] 23:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[[Fizzgigg]]

"One big nucleon" looks a lot like a planet to me.[[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I was rather hoping that [[1812: Onboarding|bismuth]] would appear as a product, even if entirely unintentional, but it's far too high up the chain to ever occur from "bronze decay"... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.147|172.70.85.147]] 14:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Protons shown in white, while the neutrons in black in the comic. Nothing wrong with this but if you visualize it the other way it makes this very confusing. {{unsigned ip|162.158.62.120|19:11, 28 November 2023}}

The transcript might need some rearranging, because the labels are technically under the diagram? although that might make it confusing. or less confusing.--[[User:Mushrooms|Mushrooms]] ([[User talk:Mushrooms|talk]]) 18:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Part of the explanation for alpha decay seems a bit mixed up: "...proton-rich / neutron-deficient heavy nuclei, which normally have many more neutrons than protons." Surely 'proton-rich' means more protons and 'neutron-deficient' means fewer neutrons, so such a nucleus would have many more protons than neutrons, wouldn't it? I hesitate to change the explanation because I'm more of a language expert than particle physicist. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.64.226|172.68.64.226]] 00:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
:Consider uranium 238, which has 92 protons and 146 neutrons.  It decays by alpha radiation to thorium 234: 90 protons and 144 neutrons.  In both cases, there are a lot more neutrons than protons, but the ratio of neutrons to protons is higher in the latter because if N > P, N/P < (N-2)/(P-2).  Or polonium 210, with 84 protons and 126 neutrons, which decays by alpha (as the last step in the U-238 decay series) to stable lead 206, with 82 protons and 124 neutrons. With sufficient decrease in the number of protons and increase in the N/P ratio, the system becomes stable.  All elements have multiple possible isotopes, and as the proton count increases, the number of neutrons needed for stability tends to increase a bit more quickly.  If there aren't quite enough neutrons, a common decay mode is alpha, which decreases the proton count and "improves" the ratio.  If the number of neutrons is a bit too high for stability, the most common decay mode is beta, increasing the number of protons and decreasing the number of neutrons, again "improving" the ratio.  This is a gross oversimplification, of course. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 05:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
:I read "...proton-rich / neutron-deficient heavy nuclei, which normally have many more neutrons than protons." as "This example has more protons and less neutrons than you'd expect for a nucleus of this weight. One with this many nucleons, in total, should consist of a greater proportion of neutrons"... But it does look a bit confusing. Definitely would be open to a rewrite (but not flipping the beginning, which'd only be rightly understood when wrongly comprehended, and vice-versa). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.163|172.70.85.163]] 13:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

== New Category: Fake Versions of a Real Thing? ==

I've noticed a recurring subject in xkcd where the comic lists versions of a real thing, the first of which are real, and the later ones fake joke versions. Examples are [[2860: Decay Modes]], [[2924: Pendulum Types]], [[2719: Hydrogen Isotopes]], and maybe [[2614: 2]]. I think we should make a new category for it. {{unsigned ip|PDesbeginner|02:08, 21 June 2024}}
:It's far more widespread than that, perhaps more a super-category given how it's practically a staple in every "several versions of things" comic. It might be nice to categorise them, but perhaps a better title for it? "Hyperbolic lists"? "Flights of fancy"? "Sublime extrapolations"? (No, I think all those suggestions have problems with them, but I have a basic idea of what kind of language I would use, just not the exact words.) Needs someone's better input, but I could see it being done. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.185|172.69.43.185]] 12:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)