|
GR8677 #41
|
|
|
Problem
|
|
 |
Atomic }Binding Energy
Nickel and Iron are the most tightly bound nuclei, thus have the highest binding energy. Nickel isn't on the list, thus Iron must be the choice.
|
|
|
Alternate Solutions |
Blake7
2007-07-23 17:44:43 | what if Iron wasn't on the list either?
I'm eyeballing a chart (Fig 13-3) in Anderson 'Intro to Modern' (p244) and it shows a curve with a rather flat, totally asymmetric peak of just under about 9MeV per at about A = 60 to 70, so to me that's from about Iron to Gemanium. (how am I to come up with 'the most abundant isotope'?)
Fortunately for us, Iron (C) is 'clearly' the only choice in this band. No doubt there's actually a relation defining this curve. (somewhere)
|  |
|
|
Comments |
spacemanERAU
2009-10-15 12:21:16 | I remembered from Modern Physics that Iron was the last element on the periodic table that is capable of being fused and guessed that because of this that Iron should be the answer and turns out I was right but Im not sure how to tie the two together. Any suggestions?
kroner
2009-11-01 16:33:37 |
Having the largest binding energy per nucleon is the same as saying its the most stable, or in other words reactions that bring nuclei closer to iron are exothermic. That's why fusing small nuclei up to iron releases energy, and splitting nuclei larger than iron releases energy.
|
|  | evanb
2008-06-19 18:54:31 | A and B can be ruled out, or stars wouldn't frequently create many of the elements we enjoy in abundance on Earth.
D and E can be ruled out, because the binding energy is so low that they decay spontaneously. |  | Blake7
2007-07-23 17:44:43 | what if Iron wasn't on the list either?
I'm eyeballing a chart (Fig 13-3) in Anderson 'Intro to Modern' (p244) and it shows a curve with a rather flat, totally asymmetric peak of just under about 9MeV per at about A = 60 to 70, so to me that's from about Iron to Gemanium. (how am I to come up with 'the most abundant isotope'?)
Fortunately for us, Iron (C) is 'clearly' the only choice in this band. No doubt there's actually a relation defining this curve. (somewhere)
FortranMan
2008-10-26 14:18:56 |
 , where  is the difference between the total mass of the element if it was separated into its correct number of protons and neutrons and its atomic mass. Literally,
m_{n} - W)
note M = W*, where the * operator rounds the number to an integer.
|
FortranMan
2008-10-26 14:24:47 |
incomplete post of mine there. = binding energy per nucleon,  =mass of a proton,  = mass of a neutron, A = atomic number, W=atomic weight, M = atomic mass number (the integer value of W). Thankfully ETS isn't expecting you to be a chemist.
|
| |
|
| Post A Comment! |
|
|
Bare Basic LaTeX Rosetta Stone
|
LaTeX syntax supported through dollar sign wrappers $, ex., $\alpha^2_0$ produces  .
|
| type this... |
to get... |
| $\int_0^\infty$ |
 |
| $\partial$ |
 |
| $\Rightarrow$ |
|
| $\ddot{x},\dot{x}$ |
 |
| $\sqrt{z}$ |
 |
| $\langle my \rangle$ |
 |
| $\left( abacadabra \right)_{me}$ |
_{me}) |
| $\vec{E}$ |
 |
| $\frac{a}{b}$ |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
