3 ms·
No, the stability of elements peaks at iron and nickel and declines again after that. If you look at the curve of binding energy per nucleon [1], the trend is q
by mppm 2y ago
No, the stability of elements peaks at iron and nickel and declines again after that. If you look at the curve of binding energy per nucleon [1], the trend is quite obvious. Note in particular that at some point past uranium, the average binding energy declines to below that of helium, making the isotopes extremely susceptible to alpha particle emission. There are some "islands of relative stability", where heavy elements are stabilized by "magic numbers" of protons and neutrons -- which is why thorium and uranium are so long lived. But we can be quite certain that there is no such thing as Element 200.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Binding_energy_curve_-_common_isotopes.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Binding_energy_curve_-_co...
- AdamH12113 2y agoWhy does that graph look like it's upside-down? Shouldn't having more binding energy per nucleon make an isotope less stable, not more? Are the energies implied to be negative potential energy?
- HPsquared 2y agoBinding energy = energy released when the nucleons bind together. In other words, energy required to break them apart.