John Vertical wrote:

(quoting me):

>> That's interesting. Have you made up any isotopic abundance tables?

>

> Well, as I said it's not too far developed. I have some preliminary

> stability tables, and only in terms of ±stable & local peaks, not

> actual nuclear binding energies; and even when I do get those

> sorted out, getting from them to abundances is going to take some

> stello-evolutionarics.

I like that word.

But maybe you don't need it. I found once that as long as you have

stability data, you can calculate neutron capture cross sections

reasonably accurately without much effort, and then you can get

pretty realistic abundance distributions by assuming a high, constant

flux for a reasonable given time.

>> Do nuclei in your conworld have any shell structure?

>

> Not planning to go too much into that, as this is all operating on the

> principle that QCD > nucleus stability (which is just about the

> only thing that really matters) is mostly a black box. But since

> all the extant stability peaks are at multiples of 4, I'm thinking

> of having mine at multiples of 3 (excusing 6, obviously.)

I think the stability peaks we have at 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82 and 126

(not all multiples of 4, but maybe you are thinking of protons and

neutrons together) lend some charm and interest to the structure of

our current world, so I would recommend something similar for

alternative ones.

Of alternative chemistries the most interesting one I've heard about

is the one in Flatland, the 2-dimensional conworld. I think it was in

Scientific American I read an article detailing Flatland chemistry

developed from solving Schrödinger equations and such for 2

dimensions. I should be able to find the article if you are interested.

LEF