Nuclear Chemistry

  • Thread starter +Minkie+
  • Start date
  • #1
24
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.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
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.
 
  • #3
24
0
So a heavier nucleus, not too much heavier, may have less overall binding energy than Fe?

Say Nickel compared to Iron?
 
  • #4
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
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 occuring isotopes; I believe one of the artificial isotopes of Ni has a higher value.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
24
0
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.
 
  • #6
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
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.
 
  • #7
24
0
I see how my thinking was wrong, it was worth a try though.
:biggrin: Imagine proving Einstein wrong:biggrin:
 

Related Threads on Nuclear Chemistry

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
959
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
20K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
6K
Top