Uranium and Springs: Same Interatomic Distance & Stiffness?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ohheytai
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Springs Uranium
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the interatomic distance and stiffness of uranium isotopes, specifically U-238 and U-235. It highlights that the interatomic distance is influenced by the electron cloud size rather than nuclear mass, suggesting it remains the same for both isotopes. The stiffness of the interatomic bond, modeled as a "spring," is argued to be identical for both isotopes due to their similar outer electron interactions. A participant initially expresses confusion but later resolves their uncertainty regarding the effective stiffness. The conversation emphasizes the chemical behavior of isotopes being fundamentally similar despite differences in nuclear mass.
ohheytai
Messages
81
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Chemically, the atoms of these two isotopes behave in essentially identical ways, since the number of protons (92) is identical and the clouds of 92 electrons are nearly identical. The interatomic distance, and the effective "stiffness" of the interatomic bond, both depend on the chemical properties of the atoms. Therefore, which of the following statements are true?

The interatomic distance is the same for the two isotopes, because it depends on the size of the electron cloud, not the nuclear mass.

An atom with more mass in the nucleus is bigger, so the distance between neighboring atoms is larger.

The effective stiffness of the interatomic "spring" is greater for U238 because the mass is greater.

The effective stiffness of the interatomic "spring" is the same in the two isotopes, since this "spring" is a model for the interactions of the outer electrons, which are the same for different isotopes of the same atom.

The Attempt at a Solution


I think it is the Last one but i am unsure can someone help me out here? I am really lost
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nevermind i figured it out!
 

Thread 'Errors and significant figures'

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...
View full post »
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

Uranium238 vs U235, which are true?
Replies
1
Views
9K
Stiffness of a single interatomic spring PLEASE HELP
Replies
8
Views
6K
Stiffness of a single interatomic spring ?
Replies
3
Views
20K
Einstein model of solids, energy in joules of one quantum
Replies
3
Views
42K
What is the quantum of energy for an atomic oscillator in a block of magnesium?
Replies
11
Views
18K
How Do You Calculate the Effective Stiffness of an Iron Bar?
Replies
1
Views
5K
General calculation of the oscillation freq of a hydrogen molecule
Replies
1
Views
11K
Electrons and their little role in nuclear physics
Replies
1
Views
2K
How Is the Effective Stiffness of an Interatomic Bond Calculated in Iron?
Replies
1
Views
8K
How Does the Stiffness of an Interatomic Bond Affect Iron's Elasticity?
Replies
6
Views
13K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top