in the sense that its nucleones are more tightly bound, and not being able/not needing to decay I guess? I read somewhere on the Internet that it's the most stable nucleas.
Oh, so the values presented in the binding energy chart are per nucleon NOT the overall binding energy?
um, not sure I...
Hello I'm a little confused about the binding energy chart and its relevance to nuclei stability.
1) why is nickel-62 nucleas more stable than iron-58 and iron-56 though they have higher binding energy?
2) Why is binding energy lower in nuclei with least number of nucleons?
correct me if...
Hello. Sorry for being annoying, I've posted like three questions today. But I'm studying nuclear chemistry and still somewhat confused regarding the binding energy and mass defect and their relation with the strong nuclear force..
1) in this Hank Green video...
He says that the mass defect...
first, is my initial understanding correct that each isotope go for only a particular kind of decay?
and if so, why? What makes uranium-238 go only for an alpha decay? while uranium 235 go for a fission decay?
I find it confusing, I tried to google the topic but I still don't get it. What is the size and shape of subatomic particles? do they have a size or shape at all? and does the fact that protons and neutrons have larger mass than electrons mean they're bigger in size?
In batteries, what exactly do we mean by negative and positive charges? My understanding is that the negative charge of the anode is basically an atom with an extra electron in the last orbital that it would need to lose to reach a more stable state. and a minus electron in the last orbit of the...