What is the heaviest element that a star will fuse?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Aizen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Element Fuse Star
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The heaviest element that a star can fuse through nuclear fusion is iron-56, as it represents the end of the fusion process under normal stellar conditions. Nickel-56 is produced in significant quantities during stellar nucleosynthesis but decays into cobalt-56 and then iron-56. The fusion of elements heavier than iron occurs primarily during supernova events, where the necessary energy conditions allow for the creation of heavier elements through rapid neutron capture processes (r-process). Therefore, while nickel-56 is produced, it ultimately contributes to the formation of iron-56 in stellar cores.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of stellar nucleosynthesis
  • Knowledge of nuclear fusion processes
  • Familiarity with isotopes and their decay chains
  • Basic principles of supernova mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the r-process and its role in heavy element formation during supernovae
  • Study the decay chains of nickel-56 and cobalt-56 to iron-56
  • Explore the conditions required for fusion beyond iron in stellar environments
  • Examine charts of isotopic masses and relative abundances for a deeper understanding of element formation
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, astrophysicists, and students of nuclear physics will benefit from this discussion, particularly those interested in stellar evolution and nucleosynthesis processes.

Aizen
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
Is Iron the heaviest element a star will fuse through nuclear fusion or will it continue to Iron into a heavier element.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I was under the impression that the highest mass element produced in large quantities was nickel-56. However, I keep finding conflicting information from various sources. Some say iron is the highest and some say nickel. I haven't yet found a good source that explains things in any real detail. I'll let you know if I do.
 
Drakkith said:
I was under the impression that the highest mass element produced in large quantities was nickel-56. However, I keep finding conflicting information from various sources. Some say iron is the highest and some say nickel. I haven't yet found a good source that explains things in any real detail. I'll let you know if I do.
Nickel 56 decays into cobalt, then iron.
 
PAllen said:
Nickel 56 decays into cobalt, then iron.

True, but does nickel have time to do so in the core of a star?
 
PAllen said:
Nickel 56 decays into cobalt, then iron.
Going on that notion what would the chronological order to element fusion be? (i.e. Hydrogen to Helium, Helium to Carbon etc.)
 
Drakkith said:
True, but does nickel have time to do so in the core of a star?
The half lives are both relatively short ( < 7 days, < 80 days). Whether energy/density conditions in a stellar core modify this, I am not sure. Since iron-56 makes up a large majority of planetary iron, I assume most comes from decay of nickel 56 produced in stars.
 
What I'm curious about is not whether the theoretical end is Fe or not, but to which extend heavier elements are built, simply as an incidental byproduct of high energy collisions.
 
Aizen said:
Is Iron the heaviest element a star will fuse through nuclear fusion or will it continue to Iron into a heavier element.
The star kills itself when it creates iron, after which it creates many of the heavier elements when it goes supernova; search up 'r-process'.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mfb
PAllen said:
The half lives are both relatively short ( < 7 days, < 80 days). Whether energy/density conditions in a stellar core modify this, I am not sure. Since iron-56 makes up a large majority of planetary iron, I assume most comes from decay of nickel 56 produced in stars.

Yes, iron-56 comes from the decay of nickel-56 (actually cobalt-56, which decays to iron-56), but I don't know how long it takes for enough nickel/cobalt/iron to build up in the core to trigger a collapse and supernova.
 
  • #10
upload_2017-1-17_16-53-43.png

http://www.physics.smu.edu/scalise/quarknet2008/FewellAJP000653.pdf
Page 656
Seems like mostly iron in the core. A higher temperature is need to produce nickel, but then that higher temperature disintegrates iron faster than nickel production.
Comments?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SD das
  • #11
Enormous energy is needed to fuse iron or any heavier elements - hence most are formed by supernovae which do have sufficient energy for such processes.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: stoomart
  • #12
Get a chart of isotopic masses and relative abundances, like

https://www.ncsu.edu/chemistry/msf/pdf/IsotopicMass_NaturalAbundance.pdf

and you can work it out for yourself. For example, a star fuses 4 atoms of hydrogen 1, 4 times 1.007825 = 4.0323
to get 1 atom of Helium 4, mass 4.002603, and releases
4.0323 -4.002603 = 0.029697 units of energy.

Try fusing 1 atom of hydrogen 1, 1.007825, to 1 unit of Iron 56, 55.934942
to get Iron 57 with mass of 56.935399, and the star releases
1.007825 + 55.934943 - 56.935399= 0.0073681 units of energy.

Try fusing 1 atom of carbon 12, 12..00000 , to 1 unit of Iron 56, 55.934942
to get zinc 68, and the star gets
12.0000 +55.934942 - 67.924848= minus 0. 01.0094 units of energy.

If there were still hydrogen in the core, a star could still gain a little energy by fusing Iron and Hydrogen to get NIckel, but by the time Iron has formed, there's a negligible amount of unfused Hydrogen left in the core. All the minus unit energy elements are produced only in a supernova.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
High School CNO Cycle
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K