Nuclear Chemistry: Iron Nucleus & Energy Needs

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the binding energy of atomic nuclei, specifically addressing whether an iron nucleus requires the most energy to hold it together. It is clarified that while total binding energy increases with nuclear mass, the binding energy per nucleon reaches its peak at iron (Fe-56). This means that heavier nuclei, such as nickel, may have lower binding energy per nucleon compared to iron, despite having greater overall binding energy. The conversation also touches on the misconception regarding binding energy and mass, emphasizing that binding energy relates to mass defect rather than total mass. The idea that this could disprove Einstein's E=mc² is dismissed, reinforcing that incorrect reasoning leads to misunderstandings about nuclear physics.
+Minkie+
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Is it true an Iron nucleus requires the most amount of energy to hold it together?

I would have thought it would be the larger the nucleus the more energy is required to hold it toghether.
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
+Minkie+ said:
Is it true an Iron nucleus requires the most amount of energy to hold it together?
Per nucleon, yes.

I would have thought it would be the larger the nucleus the more energy is required to hold it toghether.
The total binding energy increases with the nuclear mass, but the binding energy per nucleon hits a maximum at Fe.
 
So a heavier nucleus, not too much heavier, may have less overall binding energy than Fe?

Say Nickel compared to Iron?
 
+Minkie+ said:
So a heavier nucleus, not too much heavier, may have less overall binding energy than Fe?

Say Nickel compared to Iron?
It's possible, but I don't know the actual numbers.

PS: Fe-56 has the highest BE per nucleon among naturally occurring isotopes; I believe one of the artificial isotopes of Ni has a higher value.
 
Last edited:
What I'm getting at is if that were true wouldn't it prove E=MC^2 wrong?
As the Fe nucleus would have more energy but less mass than the nickel nucleus.
 
+Minkie+ said:
What I'm getting at is if that were true wouldn't it prove E=MC^2 wrong?
As the Fe nucleus would have more energy but less mass than the nickel nucleus.
No, it would not. The binding energy is not the same as the rest energy of the nucleus. The binding energy is related to the mass defect, not the total nuclear mass. The greater the mass defect, the greater the total binding energy.

If you think there's something that proves E=mc^2 wrong, then you've either got incorrect data, or you're applying an incorrect reasoning. In this case, it is the latter.
 
I see how my thinking was wrong, it was worth a try though.
:biggrin: Imagine proving Einstein wrong:biggrin:
 

Similar threads

Do chemists use X-NMR where the spin of X is greater than a half?
Replies
8
Views
1K
Is my understanding of nuclear fusion and binding energy correct?
Replies
1
Views
976
Spin of a nucleus within an external magnetic field.
Replies
8
Views
3K
A How does the strong force loses its strength with distance?
Replies
3
Views
2K
What's the best major between Physics & Chemistry for entering MS in Nuclear Engineering?
Replies
12
Views
2K
Do Spontaneous Reactions actually need activation energy?
Replies
14
Views
4K
B Iron, Nuclear Stability and Nuclear Energy
Replies
24
Views
3K
I Why the binding energy per nucleon has specific pattern?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Complete thermal decomposition of specific compounds
Replies
4
Views
3K
Using a nuclear warhead to expose large amount of limestone
Replies
11
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top