- #1
lavster
- 217
- 0
Im bit confused with something I've been reading - was wondering of someone could help me out.
If i can recall correctly, generally, even A nuclei are more stable than neighbouring odd-A nuclei due to a higher binding energy. And to be more specific, due to the nuclear shell model we can deduce that even - even nuclei are the stablest, leading to their greater abundence.
However I have just read the following sentence- "further, as with alpha decay, the half lives [of spontaneous fission] of the odd-A and odd-odd nuclides are considerably longer than interpolation between neighbouring, even species would suggest". This sentence confused me - surely more stable nuclei (ie even A nuclei) would have longer half lives compared to the neighbouring odd -A nuclei? Not the other way round? Is it me misinterpreting this sentence or is my basic knowledge wrong?
Thanks
If i can recall correctly, generally, even A nuclei are more stable than neighbouring odd-A nuclei due to a higher binding energy. And to be more specific, due to the nuclear shell model we can deduce that even - even nuclei are the stablest, leading to their greater abundence.
However I have just read the following sentence- "further, as with alpha decay, the half lives [of spontaneous fission] of the odd-A and odd-odd nuclides are considerably longer than interpolation between neighbouring, even species would suggest". This sentence confused me - surely more stable nuclei (ie even A nuclei) would have longer half lives compared to the neighbouring odd -A nuclei? Not the other way round? Is it me misinterpreting this sentence or is my basic knowledge wrong?
Thanks