So, I did not find yet the full explanation but just to illustrate what I meant above, let us look at this picture
In this example, both neutron and proton potential wells are shown for the case of 116Sn. We see clearly that the proton potential is higher due to the Coulomb force; for 116Sn...
Hmmm, I still do not understand why, at high energy, Coulom barrier still matter. If the Coulomb barrier is let us say equal to 20 MeV and the excitation energy is 100 MeV, then Coulomb barrier effect should become negligible. Let me think about that.
No, I completely disagree, proton emission is always (often?) less favorable compared to neutron emission even at higher energy. For example let us consider now the spallation reaction as what it is done at GSi, Germany. They accelerate 208Pb at let us 1 Gev/nucleon. Lead beam impinges on target...
My question is about exactly that point. Above a given energy, let us say 50 MeV just to be sure to be much higher than the Coulomb barrier. Then, with such energy, I am pretty sure that the nucleus will emit a neutron rather than a proton (for 208Pb I am not absolutely sure but for 250Cf, I am...
No, "proton separation energy" means that the nucleus has enough energy to emit spontaneously a proton. Taking into account the Coulomb barrier explains why the proton separation energy is higher than the neutron one. You can see for example the figure 3, page 161 from...
I agree for a nucleus with an excitation energy below the proton separation energy. But my question is about if the nucleus has an excitation energy a bit higher than this separation energy (as I explained with 208Pb nucleus)
@berkeman: thanks for the correction, you were right.
Hello,
For a given excitation energy, why a nucleus "choose" to evaporate preferentially a neutron or a proton?
I mean, let us take for example the isotope 208Pb. Its neutron separation energy is 7367.87 keV while its proton separation energy is 8004 keV. If this isotope has an excitation energy...
Oh yeah, you are right. So if I understood correctly, if nuclei would decay only by electron capture, lifetime of heavy nuclei should be smaller than the one of the lighter nuclei? Right? And still if I understood correctly, it is possible to observe a trend if we plot data as a function of Z...
Hi, is it true that the heavy atoms decaying only by electron capture should have globally a half-life shorter than ligher nuclei (decaying also only by electron capture)? This assumption comes from the fact heavy atoms have inner electron "closer" to their nucleus than the lighter ones and so a...