Physics A2 help-binding energy

Associate
Joined
12 Jul 2010
Posts
334
i understand how fe is the most stable atom in the universe as it has the highest binding energy.
but for the general rule is "the higher the binding energy, the more stable the atom"

why is this general rule so?

because surely it can always spontanously decay to a higher binding energy what ever the current binding energy is until it reaches fe thus only fe can be the true stable atom.
 
The high binding energy of iron refers to the energy holding together
the particles in the nuclei of iron atoms. Saying that iron is stable
means that it would take relatively a lot of energy to create a
nuclear reaction such as fusion or fission with iron atoms, compared
to other elements.

Chemical reactions are different from nuclear reactions--nuclear
reactions involve much higher levels of energy, and nuclear reactions
involve changes in the nuclei of atoms, whereas chemical reactions
don't change nuclei, but just change the way atoms are hooked together
with chemical bonds, which involve electrons rather than nuclei.
Because the nucleus determines the atom's identity as an element,
after a nuclear reaction, iron would not be iron any more, whereas
after a chemical reaction, iron atoms would still be iron atoms, just
arranged in molecules differently.

So iron's reluctance to participate in nuclear reactions is unrelated
to its willingness to participate in chemical reactions and you are
correct that nuclear stability is different from chemical inertness."

the binding energy of iron relates to it nucleus while it 's ability
to react to other chemical elements has more to do with its overall
atomic structure. (Most importantly the distribution and energy levels
of the electrons which are associated with the iron atom). Unlike
elements such as Helium and Argon, Iron
is certainly not a chemically inert element.

The 'stability' to which you refer is thus closely associated with the
nucleus. When an iron nucleus or any atom with an atomic number less
than iron disintegrates , it takes an excess of energy to do this.
However when nucleii of atoms with greater atomic number than iron
disintegrate then there is an 'excess' of energy. (the best examples
been atoms of Uranium and Plutonium) which emit large amounts of
energy when their nucleii disintegrate.

It should also be pointed out that most nucleii of atoms are normally
stable and it takes an outside interation to cause it to split or
disintegrate. (In the case of Plutonium and Uranium it is usually the
absorption of an neutron into its nuclues)
 
thanks for answer.

heres the problem on a exercise question i think it was 1 marker but still, we had worked out a the binding energy per a nucleon to be around 8 Mev, the question asked, do you think the nucleii will be stable. the answer was yes as it has a very high binding energy.

this is all well but why does a higher binding energy per nucleon make a atom more stable? oviously if we wanted to seperate all the protons and neturons from a nucleii with 50 nucleons, it would be harder as we'll need more energy compared to a different combinations of a set of 50 nucleons. i.e. 50 hydragen atoms.

what do you think the stability part refers to?
 
ok time is ticking on, i'll rephrase the question.

theres this rule "the higher the binding energy per nucleon, the more stable the atom" how does a higher binding energy per nucleon make it more stable?


what i think the stability means; is it likely to decay anytime soon and change into another isotope?
 
As I understand it, having a higher binding energy (electromagnetism I'm assuming) means by consequence the atom is less likely to decay and therefore is more stable as a result.

/prepares to be schooled.
 
It's actually the 'strong' force to which the higher binding energy is referring to, but you're pretty much on the money.

Binding energy is the energy required to separate all nucleons in a nucleus. Iron is stable because it would take, as you point out, around 8MeV (per nucleon) to achieve this disintegration.

The fission and fusion events that you will need to know about liberate energy because the daughter nucleides will have higher binding energies than what you start with.

The reason why this is so, as far as I know, is because of the diameter of the nucleus. The nucleus of an Iron atom is still within the strong nuclear force's 'range' so all nucleons attract all other nucleons to keep the 'bundle' of nucleons tightly packed together. As the nucleus gets larger (i.e. when you start considering the larger, heavier elements), this cohesive force does not 'reach' to allow for the mutual attraction between nucleons. As you get bigger still, the nuclei of very large atoms are so unstable that they decay spontaneously.
 
The star that the element was made in. I'm absolutely no expert, but the mass of the star determines the elements that are 'forged' within it.
 
What determines a nucleus' size to begin with?

The number of nucleons in it. Apparently the nucleons aren't compressible, so the volume of the nucleus goes up linearly with the number of nucleons. (So diameter with cube root of nucleons). They proved this using electron diffraction, which was used to find the diameter of each nucleus, and the trend they found was diameter increases with cube root of nucleons, meaning density doesn't change however many nucleons you have.

I'm looking forwards to my physics on Monday - love all this stuff...
 
Last edited:
The number of nucleons in it. Apparently the nucleons aren't compressible, so the volume of the nucleus goes up linearly with the number of nucleons. (So diameter with cube root of nucleons). They proved this using electron diffraction, which was used to find the diameter of each nucleus, and the trend they found was diameter increases with cube root of nucleons, meaning density doesn't change however many nucleons you have.

I'm looking forwards to my physics on Monday - love all this stuff...

yup but the reason why they don't compress is because the strong force starts replusing the nucleons when they get to a certain distance thus the volume is proportional to the number of nucleons. and as volume is proportional to R^3.
R=k*A^(1/3)

where K is the r0 constant.

sorry for late replies, the subcription email didn't report properly.
 
Ok I have a set of questions here with their markschemes.

If you click on my 'trust' and send me an email through that, I'll reply with them attached.
 
thanks got them.

I'm semi-looking forward to the paper, the stuff is easy but those 2*6 marker questions where they assess your quality of writing is making me scared lol :(
 
Back
Top Bottom