Why do stars only produce up to iron and nickel

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the processes of nuclear fusion in stars, specifically why fusion reactions cease to produce elements heavier than iron and nickel. Participants explore the energy dynamics involved in fusion and fission reactions, the role of binding energy, and the production of heavy elements through the r-process.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions their professor's assertion that fusion after iron and nickel releases energy but is insufficient to prevent a star from imploding, noting that other sources claim it requires energy for fusion beyond these elements.
  • Another participant suggests that both the original poster and their professor are partially correct, explaining that from a binding energy perspective, iron and zirconium nuclei are similar and stable against fission, with the preference for iron-56 being attributed to kinetic rather than thermodynamic effects.
  • Binding energy values are provided for several isotopes, indicating that iron-56 has a higher binding energy per nucleon compared to heavier elements like strontium and zirconium.
  • It is proposed that heavy elements are produced in the r-process due to non-equilibrium fluxes of protons and neutrons, with a discussion on how iron nuclei can convert to lead under certain conditions, gaining energy in the process.
  • A participant acknowledges a potential mistake in their calculation regarding the energy of nuclei, suggesting that the difference in mass energy is what matters, and questions the frequent reference to binding energy per nucleon (B/A) in discussions of fusion and fission energy release.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the energy dynamics of fusion and fission beyond iron and nickel, with no consensus reached on the correctness of the claims made by the original poster or their professor. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of binding energy and the r-process.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes complex concepts such as binding energy, mass-energy equivalence, and the r-process, which may not be fully understood by all participants. There are references to specific calculations and theoretical perspectives that are not universally agreed upon.

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