Why do stars only produce up to iron and nickel

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Stars primarily produce elements up to iron (Fe-56) and nickel (Ni-62) due to the binding energy per nucleon, which peaks at these elements, making further fusion energetically unfavorable. While fusion reactions beyond iron and nickel can release energy, they do not provide sufficient energy to prevent stellar collapse. The r-process, involving non-equilibrium fluxes of protons and neutrons, facilitates the production of heavier elements, but these tend to revert to the iron-zirconium range under normal conditions. The binding energy values for relevant isotopes are Fe-56: 1.082 MeV, Ni-62: 1.077 MeV, Sr-88: 0.991 MeV, and Zr-92: 0.962 MeV.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of nuclear fusion and fission processes
  • Familiarity with binding energy concepts
  • Knowledge of the r-process in nucleosynthesis
  • Basic principles of mass-energy equivalence (E=mc²)
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the r-process and its role in nucleosynthesis
  • Study the implications of binding energy per nucleon in nuclear reactions
  • Explore advanced fusion processes beyond iron and nickel
  • Investigate the stability of heavy nuclei and their decay pathways
USEFUL FOR

Astronomy students, astrophysicists, nuclear physicists, and anyone interested in stellar nucleosynthesis and the formation of heavy elements in the universe.

niko_.97
Messages
18
Reaction score
4
I know it's a common question but I've found no answers online so far. My professor has made a point out of saying that fusion reactions after iron and nickel do release energy but just not enough to keep the star from imploding. This didn't make sense to me. How would fission release energy if that were the case? Every where I've looked online says that it does in fact take energy for fusion after iron and nickel. I even did a little numerical calculation for for nickel-62 fusing with an alpha particle to make zinc-66 and found that it's preferable for it to stay as its constituents.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Actual picture is very complicated, therefore both you and your professor are partially correct.
From binding energy perspective, iron (N=26) to zirconium (N=40) nuclei are very similar and theoretically stable against fission once formed, therefore preference to Iron-56 in modern universe is mostly due kinetic, not thermodynamic effects.

Binding energy per nucleon (referenced to carbon-12)
Fe-56: 1.082 MeV
Ni-62: 1.077 MeV
Sr-88: 0.991 MeV
Zr-92: 0.962 MeV

Heavy elements are actually produced in r-process, because of non-equilibrium fluxes of protons and neutrons. If you have for example iron nuclei immersed in proton&neutron flux, the conversion of iron to lead still gains additional energy. Of course, as long as non-equilibrum flux of light particles vanishes, the heavy nuclei tends to disintegrate back to Fe-Zr range, albeit inefficiently in case of stellar explosion.
 
Last edited:
trurle said:
Actual picture is very complicated, therefore both you and your professor are partially correct.
From binding energy perspective, iron (N=26) to zirconium (N=40) nuclei are very similar and theoretically stable against fission once formed, therefore preference to Iron-56 in modern universe is mostly due kinetic, not thermodynamic effects.

Binding energy per nucleon (referenced to carbon-12)
Fe-56: 1.082 MeV
Ni-62: 1.077 MeV
Sr-88: 0.991 MeV
Zr-92: 0.962 MeV

Heavy elements are actually produced in r-process, because of non-equilibrium fluxes of protons and neutrons. If you have for example iron nuclei immersed in proton&neutron flux, the conversion of iron to lead still gains additional energy. Of course, as long as non-equilibrum flux of light particles vanishes, the heavy nuclei tends to disintegrate back to Fe-Zr range, albeit inefficiently in case of stellar explosion.

Thanks for the reply. What do you mean by an r-process?
So, I emailed my professor and I see where I may have made a mistake in my calculation. If you calculate the energy of the nuclei using E=mc^2 then there is more energy in the alpha and Nickel nucleus than in the Zinc.

So, if what we actually care about is the difference in mass energy (which makes sense) why do we look at B/A and so often everywhere online talks about the difference in B/A as the energy given off in a fusion/fission reaction?
 
niko_.97 said:
Thanks for the reply. What do you mean by an r-process?
So, I emailed my professor and I see where I may have made a mistake in my calculation. If you calculate the energy of the nuclei using E=mc^2 then there is more energy in the alpha and Nickel nucleus than in the Zinc.

So, if what we actually care about is the difference in mass energy (which makes sense) why do we look at B/A and so often everywhere online talks about the difference in B/A as the energy given off in a fusion/fission reaction?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-process
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K