Total Binding energy for all isotopes.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:51 am

KitemanSA wrote:
ladajo wrote: Yes, I made an eyeball of the trending lines back to a source point. Originally I wrote it as "Magical Isotope" but then changed it.

It is curious to me that away from the boundary, there seems to be a convergence point.
I am curious. Which point?

That was the convergence point that I eyeballed. If you project the "dotted lines" back away from the boundary, they seem to converge down around 100 or so nucleons and 500Mev. So yes, about 5 Mev per nucleon.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:44 am

I find a peak on the graph at A~88 and BE ~ 780. Is that the one?

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:49 pm

Yes, for peak, but I am looking the other way. Think anti-peak.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:28 pm

ladajo wrote:Yes, for peak, but I am looking the other way. Think anti-peak.

I see several.

Code: Select all

A =  73    BE = 580
A =  91    BE = 740
A = 102    BE = 830

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:05 pm

It seems to cluster around A=100. I wonder if a refinement beyond the eyeball would reveal a single point. An of course, I am wondering why.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:30 pm

ladajo wrote:It seems to cluster around A=100. I wonder if a refinement beyond the eyeball would reveal a single point. An of course, I am wondering why.

Interesting thought.... I think that Chris can check that.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:09 pm

ladajo wrote:It seems to cluster around A=100. I wonder if a refinement beyond the eyeball would reveal a single point. An of course, I am wondering why.

You got me baffled cuz nothing seems to "cluster" around A=100. I got a single lonely point at A=102. Are you reading the graph correctly?

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:17 pm

Try to visually extend the lines of the graph, they give te impression to converge on a point somewhere on the 100 line.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:25 pm

This is what it looks like to me, as an approximate 'schematic' of the lines.

I generally think each of the lines represents elements with a lot of stable isotopes, so that each nucleon 'added to' the lower 'A' isotope bumps up its total binding energy for each nucleon addition, so we see these little lines. What I find interesting - and it may just be me seeing things in the dots, is that around 100 we get elements where the isotopes 'cross' with elements the other side of that 'divide', whereas elsewhere they tend to [generally] run side-by-side to the next one along.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:54 pm

Yes, I saw that as well. Interesting. Hmmm. and Hmm again.

If you look close at the A>200 range, those lines seem to curve in towards that 100 nexus. I know in your overlay, you dropped them straight, but they still seem to arc in. Trick of the eye???

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:57 pm

The clustering and overlapping around 100 is intriguing. I wonder if the isotope groupings line up with known families, or nuclide chains.

Be interesting to overlay the nulcide chains or periodic famlies over Chris' graph.

and Hmmmm again.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:07 pm

Just be careful - that lower line is arbitrary. The '100' point on the 'horizontal axis' is meaningless, it's just where I chose to put the axis in at that 'angle'. Both axes are 'distorted' with respect to the original cartesian lines of the very first plot. Remeber that all lines are still lines in this transformation, and these 'axes' are equivalent to some odd gradient line in the original. Only the 'angles' between points change.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:10 pm

Chris,
Dan hasn't responded in a while. Do you think he finally got it?

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:56 pm

Nope. Not yet.

D Tibbets · Post by **D Tibbets** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:04 pm

Nope, I've not got it. Chris MB first says that there is a intercept at ~ Ni 62 in his first graph in this thread, where a line drawn from the origin intercepts the curve and that there is a reversal of slope at this point. I would like to actually see this graphically, as I do not appreciate it. When he plays with the geometry of the axis of the graph it looks more concave throughout (where is the line he mentioned now?) This appears to have a peak at ~ 100 nucleons, but this is an artifact of the presentation.

Also, the nomenclature is confusing, at least to me. Total binding energy, is just that. It should be the total of the energies involved, both attractive and repulsive. I'll concede this point, though it is distasteful. There is no misunderstanding at all that as you add nucleons to a nucleus the total contained energy increases. That is not the point. The importance is the nature of the energy- strong force and coulomb repulsion. This interaction leads to the Total binding energy graph, or if you prefer the total binding energy per nucleon graph that shows the Ni62 peak with the energy (per nucleon) falling off on either side. That Ni62 is the peak, tells you that energy can be released as you approach this point from either side- fusion of lighter elements and fission of heavier elements. The claim that fusion will continue to release energy past Ni62 is the bone of contention. I have given astronomical considerations that I think would have obvious and possibly dire consequences if this occurred. I have also included multiple quotes from authoritative sources that state the fusion/ fission energy balance in relation to Ni62 (in some they use Fe56). That these are completely ignored is what is appalling. That my efforts at clarification may be inept is irrelevant.

Dan Tibbets