File talk:Nucleosynthesis periodic table.svg

Chart accuracy

This illustration was NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day on 25 January 2016, a great honour indeed!

Regarding the accuracy of the chart, it was based on data at Northern Arizona University's Meteorite Laboratory. As I wrote on en:Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2014_March_23#Nucleosynthesis, I found after its completion other sources with conflicting information, but there was no consensus on what was right.

I strive for correctness in my illustrations, so if anyone has a more reputable source, please leave me a note below and buzz me at user_talk:cmglee — looking forward to hearing from you!

Cheers, cmglee (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Isn't Helium produced in significant quantities in the cores of stars? ariochiv 25 January 2016

Indeed it is. Others have pointed out other discrepancies, too. The question is, "do we have an authoritative source that everyone can agree with?" I know this sounds like a cop-out, but ironically, it being republished by NASA implies that it's passed at least a round of peer review... ୯ ͡°  ͜১͡° ੭ cmglee (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to update table

Jennifer Johnson, Professor of Astronomy at the Ohio State University has made a more accurate periodic table and I would like to update my graphic to reflect her information. Does anyone have any comments about her table? Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 02:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I added a bit to the image description that I copied from your user page that mentions the SVG tool tip feature. Could you give your source for the data that is displayed that way?--agr (留言) 22:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the image description, ArnoldReinhold. The source is http://blog.sdss.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/periodic_table.png . I rotated the image 45° and noted the positions of the edges of the colour segments in a graphics editor. The SVG code has an embedded Python script containing a table with these edge positions, from which the SVG was generated. I know it's not very accurate (especially as the squares aren't exactly the same shape or size!), but that's the best data I have; I had asked Jennifer Johnson for raw numbers using the form at the bottom of the page, but haven't heard back. If you know of a better source, I'll be glad to update the table. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 18:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Cmglee: !
I have 2 questions about this new version:
1- Where are the elements created by the "day-to-day" fusion in stars ? I see only elements coming from cataclysms.
2- Why have you erased the man-made elements ?
--- Simon Villeneuve 20:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Simon Villeneuve, 1- Good question. Johnson's legend doesn't specify them, so I don't know. 2- There are two in brown/grey. Again, it's what Johnson had in her table. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 18:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cmglee: I'm really disappointed by theses answers. I think you tried in this version to be more precise, but the result is the opposite.
I will upload the ancient version elsewhere. --- Simon Villeneuve 10:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Simon Villeneuve, I'm sorry you feel that way. Considering the objections of inaccuracy posted on http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=35587, I had to seek a better source, and thought Johnson's was the best alternative. I'm no expert, so cannot judge which sources are most reputable or accurate. Then again, this is an user-editable site; if you can improve my table, or draw a new one, please feel free to submit your contribution. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 22:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This image is very hard for colorblind people to read.

Nucleosynthesis periodic table with slightly textured backgrounds to make colors more distinguishable for colorblind people.

Hi, this illustration was featured once again by Astronomy Picture of the Day on 25 October 2017, and as a moderator at the APOD discussion forum, I noted several complaints that the colors are impossible to read for a colorblind person. I am an illustrator, so I decided to attempt a version which remedies this. I received input from two colorblind individuals regarding this new version's legibility, and they said the colors were easy to read, at least if the zoom level was high enough to see the textures. Unfortunately, I have not worked with the svg format much, and I do not know how to have the texture maintain its scale regardless of the image scale, if that is even possible. I am also unfamiliar with Wikipedia etiquette for major revisions to someone else's illustration, so I am posting it here for advice first. Geckzilla (留言) 04:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Geckzilla. I've redrawn your textures on the current version, added a key for synthetic elements and updated the table to match Johnson's current version. Is it better? By the way, is there a reason for your changing the order of the keys in the legend? Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 15:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Human synthesis

Are the elements listed as "human syntheses" produced by natural process, only that they have decayed by now? Bubba73 (留言) 00:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Bubba73, The source states, "Tc, Pm, and the elements beyond U do not have long-lived or stable isotopes." so your statement seems correct, at least for elements with lower atomic numbers. Surely there must be some cut-off point, e.g. taking it to extremes, I think that an element of atomic number 1,234,567,890 has likely never been produced, naturally or otherwise. Would you care to ask your question on Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science or http://physics.stackexchange.com? Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 09:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Recommendations for change from HPA

Hydrogen, plutonium, high radioactives

It seems to me that describing hydrogen as "Big Bang fusion" is really not accurate. Rather, the vast majority of hydrogen is protium (¹H) which is definitely not a product of any kind of fusion; rather, it is a direct product of baryogenesis, an earlier phase of the Big Bang.

As far as plutonium is concerned, the vast amount of Pu in the terrestrial environment today is human-made. I'm wondering if it wouldn't make sense to mark it as both?

Then there are elements like Fr, Ac, and Ra for which any Solar System contents are strictly due to decay of heavier elements (mainly U and Th) *after* the formation of the Solar System and I'm wondering if it would make sense to mark those differently from their pre-decay cosmogenic origins?

HPA (留言) 16:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Neptunium, Technetium, Curium

If Tc is listed as synthetic, then Np should as well; if Np remains listed as cosmogenic (there is no pre-Solar Np resisting) then Tc and Cm should also be listed as cosmogenic.

See "List of elements by stability of isotopes."

There would be a good reason to list Pu, Cm, Tc, and Np as at least partially cosmogenic: the step from Np(-237) to Pa(-231) is dramatic: from 2,100,000 years to 32,000 years.

The elements on Earth that occur naturally (but possibly in only a handful of atoms at a time) can only have formed by decay:

Pa, Ra, Po, Ac, Rn, At, Fr; Tc and Pm both have far longer half-lives than Fr, but presumably aren't reachable through any terrestrially available decay chain.

HPA (留言) 17:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Summary: my suggestions

List Np and Pu as synthetic, with perhaps a small corner of purple for Pu.

List Pa, Ra, Po, Ac, Rn, At and Fr with a new color for "Decay from heavier elements, no stable isotopes" or some such.

Possibly add some fraction of the above for some of the current elements which ought to have been produced in some quantity by decay from heavier primordial elements; e.g. Th (from Pu-244), Bi and Tl (from Np-237), and Pb (from Th-232, U-235 or U-238). An expert would probably have to to say how big that fraction is. This is not a comprehensive list.

Make it clear that this refers to present-day Earth, as other parts of the Universe will be different.

HPA (留言) 17:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You may be right, HPA – I don't know enough to confirm or refute it. Would you mind asking for confirmation on Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science or http://physics.stackexchange.com – or even better if you reach Jennifer Johnson at http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~jaj/nucleo/ ? Thanks, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 19:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

APOD

This image was featured again as NASA’s Astronomy Picture of the Day on August 9, 2020. [1]—agr (留言) 10:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)