Talk:Iron-56
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Binding energy[edit]
After a brief search I found a value of 8.790 MeV, but the value from the infobox is 492.3 MeV. Not only is that about 56 times greater than what I found, that is also way too high for binding energy. Is that an error that survived since the page creation or am I missing something?
- There is no error in the data here. 492.3 MeV is the total binding energy "stored" in the iron-56 nucleus, whereas 8.790 is the binding energy per nucleon, so 1/56 the total times 56 nucleons. Indeed, it is no coincidence that the infobox value is 56 times greater than the value you found; the problem might be that the term binding energy without context is sometimes ambiguous—in can be used to refer to either value. ComplexRational (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- The consensus seems to be to use total binding energy in infoboxes. But Nickel-62 use per nucleon binding energy, which is why I assumed other pages would also be using per nucleon binding energy. There is at least one page that may need to be edited to follow the consensus, but more may be around. (oop forgot to sign my previous message) 92.147.7.201 (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Curiously, it seems that many isotope articles do not include either type of binding energy in the infobox. Nickel-62 would be an exception, though, as you note, so feel free to correct that one to match some of the other articles. ComplexRational (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- The consensus seems to be to use total binding energy in infoboxes. But Nickel-62 use per nucleon binding energy, which is why I assumed other pages would also be using per nucleon binding energy. There is at least one page that may need to be edited to follow the consensus, but more may be around. (oop forgot to sign my previous message) 92.147.7.201 (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)