Simple expression for Coloumb energy

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the expression for Coulomb energy in nuclear physics, specifically the formula ##E_{barrier} \propto Z^2 A^{-\frac{1}{3}}##. Participants debate the implications of increasing nucleon numbers (A) and atomic numbers (Z) on the energy barrier for nuclear reactions. The confusion arises from the interpretation of energy values, particularly the calculation yielding ##10^{14} J## using constants like ##\alpha = \frac{1}{137}## and ##r_0 = 1.2 \times 10^{-15} m##. The conversation highlights the need for clarity regarding the energy required to split a nucleus versus the energy barrier associated with nuclear reactions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of nuclear physics concepts such as Coulomb energy and energy barriers.
  • Familiarity with the constants ##\alpha## and ##r_0## in nuclear calculations.
  • Knowledge of the relationship between atomic number (Z), mass number (A), and their effects on nuclear stability.
  • Basic grasp of energy units and their conversions in physics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the derivation of the Coulomb energy formula in nuclear physics.
  • Study the implications of the ##E_{barrier} \propto Z^2 A^{-\frac{1}{3}}## relationship on nuclear reactions.
  • Explore the differences between energy barriers for fission and fusion processes.
  • Examine the role of surface energy terms in nuclear stability calculations.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in nuclear physics, researchers analyzing nuclear reactions, and educators seeking to clarify concepts related to Coulomb energy and energy barriers in nuclear processes.

unscientific
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
13
coloumb1.png


How did they arrive at this expression? I understand the ##Q^2## term in the nominator and the ##r = r_0 (A)^{\frac{1}{3}}## term in the denominator. Where did the ##\frac{\alpha}{2}## term come from?

Putting in Z=40, A=100 gives ##3.3 \times 10^{14} J##, not ##65 MeV##.

The energy term should be of the form ## \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \frac{Q^2}{R}##.

Also, shouldn't the energy barrier ##E_{barrier}## decrease with increasing nucleon number?

coloumb2.png


However, the text seems to imply the opposite.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
This could be related to the chosen unit system. Alternatively, it is the difference between a single sphere and the two spheres. Where does the text come from?

How did you get 1014 J? That does not work in any unit system.

The coulomb energy shown there increases with increasing A and Z as you have more and more protons but the distance does not grow that much.
The full energy barrier decreases, to see that you have to include the original coulomb energy (as a single nucleus) - you'll see it is larger than the energy for two separated halves.
 
mfb said:
This could be related to the chosen unit system. Alternatively, it is the difference between a single sphere and the two spheres. Where does the text come from?

How did you get 1014 J? That does not work in any unit system.

The coulomb energy shown there increases with increasing A and Z as you have more and more protons but the distance does not grow that much.
The full energy barrier decreases, to see that you have to include the original coulomb energy (as a single nucleus) - you'll see it is larger than the energy for two separated halves.

Using ##\alpha = \frac{1}{137}##, ## r_0 = 1.2 \times 10^{-15} m##, ##Z=40## and ##A=100## gives ##10^{14} ##.

I'm confused. You say: "The coulomb energy shown there increases with increasing A and Z..." and you then say "The full energy barrier decreases..". Does the energy barrier increase or decrease?
 
unscientific said:
Using ##\alpha = \frac{1}{137}##, ## r_0 = 1.2 \times 10^{-15} m##, ##Z=40## and ##A=100## gives ##10^{14} ##.
No, it gives 1014/m. Which shows you got the units wrong, or there is some prefactor missing. Either way, you cannot simply put some arbitrary unit of energy (like Joule) to it.

I'm confused. You say: "The coulomb energy shown there increases with increasing A and Z..." and you then say "The full energy barrier decreases..". Does the energy barrier increase or decrease?
The expression there increases, but the energy barrier for splitting decreases.
 
mfb said:
The expression there increases, but the energy barrier for splitting decreases.

Since ##E_{barrier} \propto Z^2 A^{-\frac{1}{3}}##, shouldn't the energy barrier increase with addition of protons?
 
This is not the energy needed to split the nucleus.
 
mfb said:
This is not the energy needed to split the nucleus.

Ok, if the energy barrier is not the energy needed to split the nucleus, then:

1. What does the energy barrier mean?
2. What then, is the energy required to split the nucleus?
 
unscientific said:
1. What does the energy barrier mean?
That's what I asked in post 2: where is the text from?
2. What then, is the energy required to split the nucleus?
The difference in total energy between the two discussed states, including the surface term that has been mentioned in post 1 and the electrostatic potential difference between initial and final state. That is not exact, but it will should give a reasonable approximation.
 
mfb said:
That's what I asked in post 2: where is the text from?
The difference in total energy between the two discussed states, including the surface term that has been mentioned in post 1 and the electrostatic potential difference between initial and final state. That is not exact, but it will should give a reasonable approximation.

This came from our lecture notes.

That splitting energy makes sense. The notes are confusing, as they say:

"For larger values of A, the energy barrier (7.1) continues to increase relative to final state of two well-separated daughters. "

Shouldn't (7.1) decrease with A?!
 
  • #10
That looks more like the energy barrier for fusion (because it is compared two two well-separated nuclei). I don't know.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K