Nuclear physics: neutral atomic mass vs. atomic mass

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the binding energy of uranium-235 to demonstrate mass-energy equivalence in nuclear reactor technology. The user initially used the atomic mass of the entire U-235 atom, which includes electron mass, rather than the neutral atomic mass of just the nucleus. After correcting the notation and substituting the proper values, the calculated binding energy was still slightly off from the expected value, with a discrepancy of 0.72%. The user seeks clarification on the correct approach and the significance of using the neutral atomic mass for accurate results. Understanding the distinction between atomic mass and nuclear mass is crucial for precise calculations in nuclear physics.
rhombus
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I am preparing a presentation on nuclear reactor technology.

To demonstrate the mass-energy equivalence, I am trying to calculate the binding energy of some heavier isotopes. The problem is that, when I substitute the values that I have into the equation, I get a binding energy that is substantially below what I have found in a range of sources.

Homework Equations



E_{B} = (Zm_{p}+Nm_{n}-^{A}_{Z}m)c^{2}

The Attempt at a Solution



Substitution, using uranium 235 as an example:

E_{B} = ((143*1.007974)+(92*1.0086649156)-235.04393005)931.5*10^{6}\frac{eV}{c^{2}}

=1763.81777851379 MeV

But the binding energy reported in the same source that the atomic mass came from was 1783.890991 MeV, which is substantially more than my result.

I understand that I need to be using the neutral atomic mass, but quite honestly, I don't know what that means exactly, and I don't know where to find it. I tried subtracting the electron masses from the atomic mass, but then I ended up with a binding energy that was too large.

A textbook I have used an abridged table that was lifted from a nuclear physics textbook (which I don't have).

What am I doing wrong here?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
rhombus said:
What am I doing wrong here?
It would help to explain the concept. The binding energy is the difference in mass between the nucleus and the separated nucleons x c^2.

So you have the right concept. But you have to use the atomic mass of just the U235 nucleus. You are using the atomic mass of the whole U235 atom.

If you use the neutral atomic mass, you have to include the mass of 92 electrons (one for each proton). Then you can use the atomic mass of the whole U235 atom (which includes 92 electrons).

AM
 
Last edited:
Andrew Mason said:
But you have to use the atomic mass of just the U235 nucleus. You are using the atomic mass of the whole U235 atom.

If you use the neutral atomic mass, you have to include the mass of 92 electrons (one for each proton). Then you can use the atomic mass of the whole U235 atom (which includes 92 electrons).

AM

Yike. I must have been tired when I did this.

My first mistake was switching the neutron and proton numbers.

Secondly, my notation was not correct. The first mass is in fact the mass of the complete hydrogen atom, including electrons, so it does balance out the mass of the neutral U-235 atom. Perhaps the notation should have looked like this:


<br /> E_{B} = (Zm_{H}+Nm_{n}-^{A}_{Z}m)c^{2}<br />

Now, the number looks a bit better, though still off:

<br /> E_{B} = ((92*1.007974)+(143*1.0086649156)-235.04393005)931.5*10^{6}\frac{eV}{u} <br />

<br /> =1796.64076046521 MeV<br />

But all the sources I have show a binding energy of 1783 MeV for the first four significant digits. That's an error of 0.72%. Less than one, sure, but I would expect, using reliable sources, to get at least those first four digits correct. What's wrong?

Here are my sources:

For the hydrogen mass: http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2006/pdf/7811x2051.pdf (IUPAC)

For the neutron mass: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/tables/bxxx.pdf (Lawrence Berkeley Lab)

For the uranium-235 mass: http://t2.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/quecalc?192,335 (that's from Los Alamos).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top