Nuclear Stability: A Comparison of Binding Energy and Packing Fraction

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between binding energy per nucleon and packing fraction in nuclear stability. It highlights that while a higher binding energy per nucleon suggests a more stable nucleus, a smaller packing fraction seems to indicate the opposite. The confusion arises from the definitions of mass defect in nuclear physics versus mass spectrometry. The participant seeks clarification on how a higher mass defect correlates with stability, questioning the implications of packing fraction. Understanding these concepts is crucial for resolving the apparent discrepancy in nuclear stability assessments.
Krushnaraj Pandya
Gold Member
Messages
697
Reaction score
73

Homework Statement


This is a conceptual question I have, the binding energy per nucleon is mass defect*c^2/mass number while the packing fraction is mass defect/mass number. A higher binding energy per nucleon indicates a more stable nucleus BUT a smaller packing fraction indicates a more stable nucleus as well despite BE/A=PF*c^2 as per the formulas- what blunder am I making?

Homework Equations


mentioned above

The Attempt at a Solution


mentioned above
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let me re-frame the question, a higher mass defect means more energy to hold the nucleus together and a smaller atomic mass means less nucleons and radius, according to this a higher packing fraction should indicate a more stable nucleus not a less stable one, I'd be really grateful for any help to understand this-Thank you
 
can anyone solve this discrepancy?
 
Packing fraction is a term from mass spectrometry, in which "mass defect" is defined differently than in nuclear physics.
 

Thread 'Rolling without slipping on a curved surface'

Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
View full post »

Thread 'Struggling to understand the concept of this question (ice cube in water optics question)'

TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
View full post »

Similar threads

Is my understanding of nuclear fusion and binding energy correct?
Replies
1
Views
1K
Variation in mass and binding energy in nuclear reactions
Replies
5
Views
2K
Understanding Nuclear Stability: The Role of Binding Energy
Replies
5
Views
2K
Conceptual question about binding energy, from OCR paper
Replies
4
Views
2K
Calculating Binding Energy for C13 Neutron Removal
Replies
16
Views
2K
Where is nuclear binding energy stored?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Why Is Energy Released in Nuclear Decay Equal to Change in Binding Energies?
Replies
13
Views
1K
Correct statement regarding the graph of binding energy per nucleon
Replies
11
Views
2K
The binding energy per nucleon of tritium
Replies
10
Views
2K
I Why the binding energy per nucleon has specific pattern?
Replies
2
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top