Why is there so much iron?












21












$begingroup$


We all know where iron comes from. However, as I am reading up on supernovas, I started to wonder why there is as much iron as there is in the universe.




  • Neither brown dwarfs nor white dwarfs deposit iron.


  • Type I supernovas leave no remnant so I can see where there would be iron released.


  • Type II supernovas leave either a neutron star or a black hole. As I understand it, the iron ash core collapses and the shock wave blows the rest of the star apart. Therefore no iron is released. (I know some would be made in the explosion along with all of the elements up to uranium. But would that account for all of the iron in the universe?)


  • Hypernovas will deposit iron, but they seem to be really rare.



Do Type I supernovas happen so frequently that iron is this common? Or am I missing something?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 10




    $begingroup$
    Therefore no iron is released. are you sure?
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    I know some would be made in the explosion along with all of the elements up to uranium. But would that account for all of the iron in the universe? (I was thinking that the amount of iron being made during the compression of the rest of the star could not account for all of the iron in the universe...) Type II's do not seem to happen that often....do they?
    $endgroup$
    – Rick
    yesterday








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    This table in Wikipedia's "Nucleosynthesis" article might help, detailed here.
    $endgroup$
    – Nat
    yesterday








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I would disagree with you... There is a LOT of iron, almost as much as Oxygen and Carbon (as well as silicon)...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis#/media/…
    $endgroup$
    – Rick
    22 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Jepsilon Specifically, Ni-62 is the peak. However, iron is easier to produce, so while Ni-62 is (very very slightly) more stable, there's more iron. Binding energy isn't everything - after all, most of the visible matter in the universe is still hydrogen, which is a stable element with (one of?) the highest energy per nucleon.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    11 hours ago
















21












$begingroup$


We all know where iron comes from. However, as I am reading up on supernovas, I started to wonder why there is as much iron as there is in the universe.




  • Neither brown dwarfs nor white dwarfs deposit iron.


  • Type I supernovas leave no remnant so I can see where there would be iron released.


  • Type II supernovas leave either a neutron star or a black hole. As I understand it, the iron ash core collapses and the shock wave blows the rest of the star apart. Therefore no iron is released. (I know some would be made in the explosion along with all of the elements up to uranium. But would that account for all of the iron in the universe?)


  • Hypernovas will deposit iron, but they seem to be really rare.



Do Type I supernovas happen so frequently that iron is this common? Or am I missing something?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 10




    $begingroup$
    Therefore no iron is released. are you sure?
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    I know some would be made in the explosion along with all of the elements up to uranium. But would that account for all of the iron in the universe? (I was thinking that the amount of iron being made during the compression of the rest of the star could not account for all of the iron in the universe...) Type II's do not seem to happen that often....do they?
    $endgroup$
    – Rick
    yesterday








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    This table in Wikipedia's "Nucleosynthesis" article might help, detailed here.
    $endgroup$
    – Nat
    yesterday








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I would disagree with you... There is a LOT of iron, almost as much as Oxygen and Carbon (as well as silicon)...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis#/media/…
    $endgroup$
    – Rick
    22 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Jepsilon Specifically, Ni-62 is the peak. However, iron is easier to produce, so while Ni-62 is (very very slightly) more stable, there's more iron. Binding energy isn't everything - after all, most of the visible matter in the universe is still hydrogen, which is a stable element with (one of?) the highest energy per nucleon.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    11 hours ago














21












21








21


1



$begingroup$


We all know where iron comes from. However, as I am reading up on supernovas, I started to wonder why there is as much iron as there is in the universe.




  • Neither brown dwarfs nor white dwarfs deposit iron.


  • Type I supernovas leave no remnant so I can see where there would be iron released.


  • Type II supernovas leave either a neutron star or a black hole. As I understand it, the iron ash core collapses and the shock wave blows the rest of the star apart. Therefore no iron is released. (I know some would be made in the explosion along with all of the elements up to uranium. But would that account for all of the iron in the universe?)


  • Hypernovas will deposit iron, but they seem to be really rare.



Do Type I supernovas happen so frequently that iron is this common? Or am I missing something?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




We all know where iron comes from. However, as I am reading up on supernovas, I started to wonder why there is as much iron as there is in the universe.




  • Neither brown dwarfs nor white dwarfs deposit iron.


  • Type I supernovas leave no remnant so I can see where there would be iron released.


  • Type II supernovas leave either a neutron star or a black hole. As I understand it, the iron ash core collapses and the shock wave blows the rest of the star apart. Therefore no iron is released. (I know some would be made in the explosion along with all of the elements up to uranium. But would that account for all of the iron in the universe?)


  • Hypernovas will deposit iron, but they seem to be really rare.



Do Type I supernovas happen so frequently that iron is this common? Or am I missing something?







astrophysics astronomy supernova






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 9 hours ago









Rodrigo de Azevedo

1617




1617










asked yesterday









RickRick

560113




560113








  • 10




    $begingroup$
    Therefore no iron is released. are you sure?
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    I know some would be made in the explosion along with all of the elements up to uranium. But would that account for all of the iron in the universe? (I was thinking that the amount of iron being made during the compression of the rest of the star could not account for all of the iron in the universe...) Type II's do not seem to happen that often....do they?
    $endgroup$
    – Rick
    yesterday








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    This table in Wikipedia's "Nucleosynthesis" article might help, detailed here.
    $endgroup$
    – Nat
    yesterday








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I would disagree with you... There is a LOT of iron, almost as much as Oxygen and Carbon (as well as silicon)...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis#/media/…
    $endgroup$
    – Rick
    22 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Jepsilon Specifically, Ni-62 is the peak. However, iron is easier to produce, so while Ni-62 is (very very slightly) more stable, there's more iron. Binding energy isn't everything - after all, most of the visible matter in the universe is still hydrogen, which is a stable element with (one of?) the highest energy per nucleon.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    11 hours ago














  • 10




    $begingroup$
    Therefore no iron is released. are you sure?
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    I know some would be made in the explosion along with all of the elements up to uranium. But would that account for all of the iron in the universe? (I was thinking that the amount of iron being made during the compression of the rest of the star could not account for all of the iron in the universe...) Type II's do not seem to happen that often....do they?
    $endgroup$
    – Rick
    yesterday








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    This table in Wikipedia's "Nucleosynthesis" article might help, detailed here.
    $endgroup$
    – Nat
    yesterday








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I would disagree with you... There is a LOT of iron, almost as much as Oxygen and Carbon (as well as silicon)...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis#/media/…
    $endgroup$
    – Rick
    22 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Jepsilon Specifically, Ni-62 is the peak. However, iron is easier to produce, so while Ni-62 is (very very slightly) more stable, there's more iron. Binding energy isn't everything - after all, most of the visible matter in the universe is still hydrogen, which is a stable element with (one of?) the highest energy per nucleon.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    11 hours ago








10




10




$begingroup$
Therefore no iron is released. are you sure?
$endgroup$
– Kyle Kanos
yesterday




$begingroup$
Therefore no iron is released. are you sure?
$endgroup$
– Kyle Kanos
yesterday












$begingroup$
I know some would be made in the explosion along with all of the elements up to uranium. But would that account for all of the iron in the universe? (I was thinking that the amount of iron being made during the compression of the rest of the star could not account for all of the iron in the universe...) Type II's do not seem to happen that often....do they?
$endgroup$
– Rick
yesterday






$begingroup$
I know some would be made in the explosion along with all of the elements up to uranium. But would that account for all of the iron in the universe? (I was thinking that the amount of iron being made during the compression of the rest of the star could not account for all of the iron in the universe...) Type II's do not seem to happen that often....do they?
$endgroup$
– Rick
yesterday






3




3




$begingroup$
This table in Wikipedia's "Nucleosynthesis" article might help, detailed here.
$endgroup$
– Nat
yesterday






$begingroup$
This table in Wikipedia's "Nucleosynthesis" article might help, detailed here.
$endgroup$
– Nat
yesterday






2




2




$begingroup$
I would disagree with you... There is a LOT of iron, almost as much as Oxygen and Carbon (as well as silicon)...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis#/media/…
$endgroup$
– Rick
22 hours ago




$begingroup$
I would disagree with you... There is a LOT of iron, almost as much as Oxygen and Carbon (as well as silicon)...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis#/media/…
$endgroup$
– Rick
22 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@Jepsilon Specifically, Ni-62 is the peak. However, iron is easier to produce, so while Ni-62 is (very very slightly) more stable, there's more iron. Binding energy isn't everything - after all, most of the visible matter in the universe is still hydrogen, which is a stable element with (one of?) the highest energy per nucleon.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
11 hours ago




$begingroup$
@Jepsilon Specifically, Ni-62 is the peak. However, iron is easier to produce, so while Ni-62 is (very very slightly) more stable, there's more iron. Binding energy isn't everything - after all, most of the visible matter in the universe is still hydrogen, which is a stable element with (one of?) the highest energy per nucleon.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
11 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















35












$begingroup$

The solar abundance of iron is a little bit more than a thousandth by mass. If we assume that all the baryonic mass in the disc of the Galaxy (a few $10^{10}$ solar masses) is polluted in the same way, then more than 10 million solar masses of iron must have been produced and distributed by stars.



A type Ia supernova results in something like 0.5-1 solar masses of iron (via decaying Ni 56), thus requiring about 20-50 million type Ia supernovae to explain all the Galactic Fe.



Given the age of the Galaxy of 10 billion years, this requires a type Ia supernova rate of one every 200-500 years.



The rate of type Ia supernovae in our Galaxy is not observationally measured, though there have likely been several in the last 1000 years. The rate above seems entirely plausible and was probably higher in the past.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    On an important side note: Iron has one of the largest nuclear binding energies (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…). So eventually, the percentage of iron in the universe will increase with time, as it is a stable end-product of both nuclear fusion and nuclear decay.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Tausig
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @RobertTausig doesn't iron have THE largest nuclear binding energy (rather than just "one of the largest")?
    $endgroup$
    – N. Steinle
    23 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Rob, I like your answer. Perhaps it could be even better if you include an approximate rate of double neutron star mergers (which of course the rate is very uncertain but we know that such mergers produce lots of heavy elements) ? Such a NS-NS rate is expected to be at least on the same order as that of supernovae.
    $endgroup$
    – N. Steinle
    23 hours ago






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    @N.Steinle The Q asks whether type Ia supernovae can be responsible for all the iron. Neutron star mergers do not produce iron. Iron does have "one of the largest" binding energies per nucleon. It is not the largest. That would be Ni 62.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    22 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    Thank you very much for clarifying!
    $endgroup$
    – N. Steinle
    19 hours ago



















11












$begingroup$

Iron comes from exploding white dwarfs and exploding massive stars(Wikipedia).




enter image description here
(One of many amazing images by Cmglee )

Periodic table showing the cosmogenic origin of each element. Elements from carbon up to sulfur may be made in small stars by the alpha process. Elements beyond iron are made in large stars with slow neutron capture (s-process), followed by expulsion to space in gas ejections (see planetary nebulae). Elements heavier than iron may be made in neutron star mergers or supernovae after the r-process, involving a dense burst of neutrons and rapid capture by the element.







share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    While this may answer the question, it is preferable to have the content of the link copied into the post to avoid issues such s link rot, going off-site, etc.
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    yesterday



















-2












$begingroup$

The nucleosynthesis in the inner of the stars generates energy: The huge amounts of energy form Helium from hydrogen. The star then start generating carbon from helium and so an. This finishes with iron. To generate with larger atomic numbers the star needs more energy. Most of them are generated in supernovae, where there is a lot more energy.






share|cite|improve this answer










New contributor




Uwe Pilz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$





















    -3












    $begingroup$

    Iron is at the minimum point for energy release from fusion. For all atomic numbers less than that of iron, there is a net release of energy as additional protons and neutrons are added. Beyond iron, it's the reverse; energy must be input to fuse protons and neutrons into larger nuclei, which is why larger nuclei are only formed in supernova-type events and larger nuclei release energy on fission. As long as there are conditions to drive these processes, the tendency will be to build smaller nuclei up to iron and split larger nuclei down toward iron.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 2




      $begingroup$
      True, but not what the Rick is asking about. He's not concerned with how iron is produced, but how it's distributed - that is, how it gets into interstellar space and (eventually) other stars and planets.
      $endgroup$
      – Luaan
      11 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      "which is why larger nuclei are only formed in supernova-type events". Not true.
      $endgroup$
      – Rob Jeffries
      7 hours ago











    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f466889%2fwhy-is-there-so-much-iron%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    35












    $begingroup$

    The solar abundance of iron is a little bit more than a thousandth by mass. If we assume that all the baryonic mass in the disc of the Galaxy (a few $10^{10}$ solar masses) is polluted in the same way, then more than 10 million solar masses of iron must have been produced and distributed by stars.



    A type Ia supernova results in something like 0.5-1 solar masses of iron (via decaying Ni 56), thus requiring about 20-50 million type Ia supernovae to explain all the Galactic Fe.



    Given the age of the Galaxy of 10 billion years, this requires a type Ia supernova rate of one every 200-500 years.



    The rate of type Ia supernovae in our Galaxy is not observationally measured, though there have likely been several in the last 1000 years. The rate above seems entirely plausible and was probably higher in the past.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 2




      $begingroup$
      On an important side note: Iron has one of the largest nuclear binding energies (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…). So eventually, the percentage of iron in the universe will increase with time, as it is a stable end-product of both nuclear fusion and nuclear decay.
      $endgroup$
      – Robert Tausig
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @RobertTausig doesn't iron have THE largest nuclear binding energy (rather than just "one of the largest")?
      $endgroup$
      – N. Steinle
      23 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Rob, I like your answer. Perhaps it could be even better if you include an approximate rate of double neutron star mergers (which of course the rate is very uncertain but we know that such mergers produce lots of heavy elements) ? Such a NS-NS rate is expected to be at least on the same order as that of supernovae.
      $endgroup$
      – N. Steinle
      23 hours ago






    • 10




      $begingroup$
      @N.Steinle The Q asks whether type Ia supernovae can be responsible for all the iron. Neutron star mergers do not produce iron. Iron does have "one of the largest" binding energies per nucleon. It is not the largest. That would be Ni 62.
      $endgroup$
      – Rob Jeffries
      22 hours ago












    • $begingroup$
      Thank you very much for clarifying!
      $endgroup$
      – N. Steinle
      19 hours ago
















    35












    $begingroup$

    The solar abundance of iron is a little bit more than a thousandth by mass. If we assume that all the baryonic mass in the disc of the Galaxy (a few $10^{10}$ solar masses) is polluted in the same way, then more than 10 million solar masses of iron must have been produced and distributed by stars.



    A type Ia supernova results in something like 0.5-1 solar masses of iron (via decaying Ni 56), thus requiring about 20-50 million type Ia supernovae to explain all the Galactic Fe.



    Given the age of the Galaxy of 10 billion years, this requires a type Ia supernova rate of one every 200-500 years.



    The rate of type Ia supernovae in our Galaxy is not observationally measured, though there have likely been several in the last 1000 years. The rate above seems entirely plausible and was probably higher in the past.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 2




      $begingroup$
      On an important side note: Iron has one of the largest nuclear binding energies (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…). So eventually, the percentage of iron in the universe will increase with time, as it is a stable end-product of both nuclear fusion and nuclear decay.
      $endgroup$
      – Robert Tausig
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @RobertTausig doesn't iron have THE largest nuclear binding energy (rather than just "one of the largest")?
      $endgroup$
      – N. Steinle
      23 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Rob, I like your answer. Perhaps it could be even better if you include an approximate rate of double neutron star mergers (which of course the rate is very uncertain but we know that such mergers produce lots of heavy elements) ? Such a NS-NS rate is expected to be at least on the same order as that of supernovae.
      $endgroup$
      – N. Steinle
      23 hours ago






    • 10




      $begingroup$
      @N.Steinle The Q asks whether type Ia supernovae can be responsible for all the iron. Neutron star mergers do not produce iron. Iron does have "one of the largest" binding energies per nucleon. It is not the largest. That would be Ni 62.
      $endgroup$
      – Rob Jeffries
      22 hours ago












    • $begingroup$
      Thank you very much for clarifying!
      $endgroup$
      – N. Steinle
      19 hours ago














    35












    35








    35





    $begingroup$

    The solar abundance of iron is a little bit more than a thousandth by mass. If we assume that all the baryonic mass in the disc of the Galaxy (a few $10^{10}$ solar masses) is polluted in the same way, then more than 10 million solar masses of iron must have been produced and distributed by stars.



    A type Ia supernova results in something like 0.5-1 solar masses of iron (via decaying Ni 56), thus requiring about 20-50 million type Ia supernovae to explain all the Galactic Fe.



    Given the age of the Galaxy of 10 billion years, this requires a type Ia supernova rate of one every 200-500 years.



    The rate of type Ia supernovae in our Galaxy is not observationally measured, though there have likely been several in the last 1000 years. The rate above seems entirely plausible and was probably higher in the past.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    The solar abundance of iron is a little bit more than a thousandth by mass. If we assume that all the baryonic mass in the disc of the Galaxy (a few $10^{10}$ solar masses) is polluted in the same way, then more than 10 million solar masses of iron must have been produced and distributed by stars.



    A type Ia supernova results in something like 0.5-1 solar masses of iron (via decaying Ni 56), thus requiring about 20-50 million type Ia supernovae to explain all the Galactic Fe.



    Given the age of the Galaxy of 10 billion years, this requires a type Ia supernova rate of one every 200-500 years.



    The rate of type Ia supernovae in our Galaxy is not observationally measured, though there have likely been several in the last 1000 years. The rate above seems entirely plausible and was probably higher in the past.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered yesterday









    Rob JeffriesRob Jeffries

    69.7k7140240




    69.7k7140240








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      On an important side note: Iron has one of the largest nuclear binding energies (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…). So eventually, the percentage of iron in the universe will increase with time, as it is a stable end-product of both nuclear fusion and nuclear decay.
      $endgroup$
      – Robert Tausig
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @RobertTausig doesn't iron have THE largest nuclear binding energy (rather than just "one of the largest")?
      $endgroup$
      – N. Steinle
      23 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Rob, I like your answer. Perhaps it could be even better if you include an approximate rate of double neutron star mergers (which of course the rate is very uncertain but we know that such mergers produce lots of heavy elements) ? Such a NS-NS rate is expected to be at least on the same order as that of supernovae.
      $endgroup$
      – N. Steinle
      23 hours ago






    • 10




      $begingroup$
      @N.Steinle The Q asks whether type Ia supernovae can be responsible for all the iron. Neutron star mergers do not produce iron. Iron does have "one of the largest" binding energies per nucleon. It is not the largest. That would be Ni 62.
      $endgroup$
      – Rob Jeffries
      22 hours ago












    • $begingroup$
      Thank you very much for clarifying!
      $endgroup$
      – N. Steinle
      19 hours ago














    • 2




      $begingroup$
      On an important side note: Iron has one of the largest nuclear binding energies (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…). So eventually, the percentage of iron in the universe will increase with time, as it is a stable end-product of both nuclear fusion and nuclear decay.
      $endgroup$
      – Robert Tausig
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @RobertTausig doesn't iron have THE largest nuclear binding energy (rather than just "one of the largest")?
      $endgroup$
      – N. Steinle
      23 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Rob, I like your answer. Perhaps it could be even better if you include an approximate rate of double neutron star mergers (which of course the rate is very uncertain but we know that such mergers produce lots of heavy elements) ? Such a NS-NS rate is expected to be at least on the same order as that of supernovae.
      $endgroup$
      – N. Steinle
      23 hours ago






    • 10




      $begingroup$
      @N.Steinle The Q asks whether type Ia supernovae can be responsible for all the iron. Neutron star mergers do not produce iron. Iron does have "one of the largest" binding energies per nucleon. It is not the largest. That would be Ni 62.
      $endgroup$
      – Rob Jeffries
      22 hours ago












    • $begingroup$
      Thank you very much for clarifying!
      $endgroup$
      – N. Steinle
      19 hours ago








    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    On an important side note: Iron has one of the largest nuclear binding energies (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…). So eventually, the percentage of iron in the universe will increase with time, as it is a stable end-product of both nuclear fusion and nuclear decay.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Tausig
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    On an important side note: Iron has one of the largest nuclear binding energies (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…). So eventually, the percentage of iron in the universe will increase with time, as it is a stable end-product of both nuclear fusion and nuclear decay.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Tausig
    yesterday












    $begingroup$
    @RobertTausig doesn't iron have THE largest nuclear binding energy (rather than just "one of the largest")?
    $endgroup$
    – N. Steinle
    23 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @RobertTausig doesn't iron have THE largest nuclear binding energy (rather than just "one of the largest")?
    $endgroup$
    – N. Steinle
    23 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    Rob, I like your answer. Perhaps it could be even better if you include an approximate rate of double neutron star mergers (which of course the rate is very uncertain but we know that such mergers produce lots of heavy elements) ? Such a NS-NS rate is expected to be at least on the same order as that of supernovae.
    $endgroup$
    – N. Steinle
    23 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Rob, I like your answer. Perhaps it could be even better if you include an approximate rate of double neutron star mergers (which of course the rate is very uncertain but we know that such mergers produce lots of heavy elements) ? Such a NS-NS rate is expected to be at least on the same order as that of supernovae.
    $endgroup$
    – N. Steinle
    23 hours ago




    10




    10




    $begingroup$
    @N.Steinle The Q asks whether type Ia supernovae can be responsible for all the iron. Neutron star mergers do not produce iron. Iron does have "one of the largest" binding energies per nucleon. It is not the largest. That would be Ni 62.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    22 hours ago






    $begingroup$
    @N.Steinle The Q asks whether type Ia supernovae can be responsible for all the iron. Neutron star mergers do not produce iron. Iron does have "one of the largest" binding energies per nucleon. It is not the largest. That would be Ni 62.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    22 hours ago














    $begingroup$
    Thank you very much for clarifying!
    $endgroup$
    – N. Steinle
    19 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Thank you very much for clarifying!
    $endgroup$
    – N. Steinle
    19 hours ago











    11












    $begingroup$

    Iron comes from exploding white dwarfs and exploding massive stars(Wikipedia).




    enter image description here
    (One of many amazing images by Cmglee )

    Periodic table showing the cosmogenic origin of each element. Elements from carbon up to sulfur may be made in small stars by the alpha process. Elements beyond iron are made in large stars with slow neutron capture (s-process), followed by expulsion to space in gas ejections (see planetary nebulae). Elements heavier than iron may be made in neutron star mergers or supernovae after the r-process, involving a dense burst of neutrons and rapid capture by the element.







    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      While this may answer the question, it is preferable to have the content of the link copied into the post to avoid issues such s link rot, going off-site, etc.
      $endgroup$
      – Kyle Kanos
      yesterday
















    11












    $begingroup$

    Iron comes from exploding white dwarfs and exploding massive stars(Wikipedia).




    enter image description here
    (One of many amazing images by Cmglee )

    Periodic table showing the cosmogenic origin of each element. Elements from carbon up to sulfur may be made in small stars by the alpha process. Elements beyond iron are made in large stars with slow neutron capture (s-process), followed by expulsion to space in gas ejections (see planetary nebulae). Elements heavier than iron may be made in neutron star mergers or supernovae after the r-process, involving a dense burst of neutrons and rapid capture by the element.







    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      While this may answer the question, it is preferable to have the content of the link copied into the post to avoid issues such s link rot, going off-site, etc.
      $endgroup$
      – Kyle Kanos
      yesterday














    11












    11








    11





    $begingroup$

    Iron comes from exploding white dwarfs and exploding massive stars(Wikipedia).




    enter image description here
    (One of many amazing images by Cmglee )

    Periodic table showing the cosmogenic origin of each element. Elements from carbon up to sulfur may be made in small stars by the alpha process. Elements beyond iron are made in large stars with slow neutron capture (s-process), followed by expulsion to space in gas ejections (see planetary nebulae). Elements heavier than iron may be made in neutron star mergers or supernovae after the r-process, involving a dense burst of neutrons and rapid capture by the element.







    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Iron comes from exploding white dwarfs and exploding massive stars(Wikipedia).




    enter image description here
    (One of many amazing images by Cmglee )

    Periodic table showing the cosmogenic origin of each element. Elements from carbon up to sulfur may be made in small stars by the alpha process. Elements beyond iron are made in large stars with slow neutron capture (s-process), followed by expulsion to space in gas ejections (see planetary nebulae). Elements heavier than iron may be made in neutron star mergers or supernovae after the r-process, involving a dense burst of neutrons and rapid capture by the element.








    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 14 hours ago

























    answered yesterday









    Keith McClaryKeith McClary

    1,297411




    1,297411








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      While this may answer the question, it is preferable to have the content of the link copied into the post to avoid issues such s link rot, going off-site, etc.
      $endgroup$
      – Kyle Kanos
      yesterday














    • 1




      $begingroup$
      While this may answer the question, it is preferable to have the content of the link copied into the post to avoid issues such s link rot, going off-site, etc.
      $endgroup$
      – Kyle Kanos
      yesterday








    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    While this may answer the question, it is preferable to have the content of the link copied into the post to avoid issues such s link rot, going off-site, etc.
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    While this may answer the question, it is preferable to have the content of the link copied into the post to avoid issues such s link rot, going off-site, etc.
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    yesterday











    -2












    $begingroup$

    The nucleosynthesis in the inner of the stars generates energy: The huge amounts of energy form Helium from hydrogen. The star then start generating carbon from helium and so an. This finishes with iron. To generate with larger atomic numbers the star needs more energy. Most of them are generated in supernovae, where there is a lot more energy.






    share|cite|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Uwe Pilz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$


















      -2












      $begingroup$

      The nucleosynthesis in the inner of the stars generates energy: The huge amounts of energy form Helium from hydrogen. The star then start generating carbon from helium and so an. This finishes with iron. To generate with larger atomic numbers the star needs more energy. Most of them are generated in supernovae, where there is a lot more energy.






      share|cite|improve this answer










      New contributor




      Uwe Pilz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      $endgroup$
















        -2












        -2








        -2





        $begingroup$

        The nucleosynthesis in the inner of the stars generates energy: The huge amounts of energy form Helium from hydrogen. The star then start generating carbon from helium and so an. This finishes with iron. To generate with larger atomic numbers the star needs more energy. Most of them are generated in supernovae, where there is a lot more energy.






        share|cite|improve this answer










        New contributor




        Uwe Pilz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        $endgroup$



        The nucleosynthesis in the inner of the stars generates energy: The huge amounts of energy form Helium from hydrogen. The star then start generating carbon from helium and so an. This finishes with iron. To generate with larger atomic numbers the star needs more energy. Most of them are generated in supernovae, where there is a lot more energy.







        share|cite|improve this answer










        New contributor




        Uwe Pilz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 15 hours ago









        Minijack

        1032




        1032






        New contributor




        Uwe Pilz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        answered yesterday









        Uwe PilzUwe Pilz

        837




        837




        New contributor




        Uwe Pilz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.





        New contributor





        Uwe Pilz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        Uwe Pilz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.























            -3












            $begingroup$

            Iron is at the minimum point for energy release from fusion. For all atomic numbers less than that of iron, there is a net release of energy as additional protons and neutrons are added. Beyond iron, it's the reverse; energy must be input to fuse protons and neutrons into larger nuclei, which is why larger nuclei are only formed in supernova-type events and larger nuclei release energy on fission. As long as there are conditions to drive these processes, the tendency will be to build smaller nuclei up to iron and split larger nuclei down toward iron.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$









            • 2




              $begingroup$
              True, but not what the Rick is asking about. He's not concerned with how iron is produced, but how it's distributed - that is, how it gets into interstellar space and (eventually) other stars and planets.
              $endgroup$
              – Luaan
              11 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              "which is why larger nuclei are only formed in supernova-type events". Not true.
              $endgroup$
              – Rob Jeffries
              7 hours ago
















            -3












            $begingroup$

            Iron is at the minimum point for energy release from fusion. For all atomic numbers less than that of iron, there is a net release of energy as additional protons and neutrons are added. Beyond iron, it's the reverse; energy must be input to fuse protons and neutrons into larger nuclei, which is why larger nuclei are only formed in supernova-type events and larger nuclei release energy on fission. As long as there are conditions to drive these processes, the tendency will be to build smaller nuclei up to iron and split larger nuclei down toward iron.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$









            • 2




              $begingroup$
              True, but not what the Rick is asking about. He's not concerned with how iron is produced, but how it's distributed - that is, how it gets into interstellar space and (eventually) other stars and planets.
              $endgroup$
              – Luaan
              11 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              "which is why larger nuclei are only formed in supernova-type events". Not true.
              $endgroup$
              – Rob Jeffries
              7 hours ago














            -3












            -3








            -3





            $begingroup$

            Iron is at the minimum point for energy release from fusion. For all atomic numbers less than that of iron, there is a net release of energy as additional protons and neutrons are added. Beyond iron, it's the reverse; energy must be input to fuse protons and neutrons into larger nuclei, which is why larger nuclei are only formed in supernova-type events and larger nuclei release energy on fission. As long as there are conditions to drive these processes, the tendency will be to build smaller nuclei up to iron and split larger nuclei down toward iron.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            Iron is at the minimum point for energy release from fusion. For all atomic numbers less than that of iron, there is a net release of energy as additional protons and neutrons are added. Beyond iron, it's the reverse; energy must be input to fuse protons and neutrons into larger nuclei, which is why larger nuclei are only formed in supernova-type events and larger nuclei release energy on fission. As long as there are conditions to drive these processes, the tendency will be to build smaller nuclei up to iron and split larger nuclei down toward iron.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered 21 hours ago









            Anthony XAnthony X

            2,77611220




            2,77611220








            • 2




              $begingroup$
              True, but not what the Rick is asking about. He's not concerned with how iron is produced, but how it's distributed - that is, how it gets into interstellar space and (eventually) other stars and planets.
              $endgroup$
              – Luaan
              11 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              "which is why larger nuclei are only formed in supernova-type events". Not true.
              $endgroup$
              – Rob Jeffries
              7 hours ago














            • 2




              $begingroup$
              True, but not what the Rick is asking about. He's not concerned with how iron is produced, but how it's distributed - that is, how it gets into interstellar space and (eventually) other stars and planets.
              $endgroup$
              – Luaan
              11 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              "which is why larger nuclei are only formed in supernova-type events". Not true.
              $endgroup$
              – Rob Jeffries
              7 hours ago








            2




            2




            $begingroup$
            True, but not what the Rick is asking about. He's not concerned with how iron is produced, but how it's distributed - that is, how it gets into interstellar space and (eventually) other stars and planets.
            $endgroup$
            – Luaan
            11 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            True, but not what the Rick is asking about. He's not concerned with how iron is produced, but how it's distributed - that is, how it gets into interstellar space and (eventually) other stars and planets.
            $endgroup$
            – Luaan
            11 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            "which is why larger nuclei are only formed in supernova-type events". Not true.
            $endgroup$
            – Rob Jeffries
            7 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            "which is why larger nuclei are only formed in supernova-type events". Not true.
            $endgroup$
            – Rob Jeffries
            7 hours ago


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f466889%2fwhy-is-there-so-much-iron%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Plaza Victoria

            Brian Clough

            Cáceres