Why is there so much iron?
$begingroup$
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?
astrophysics astronomy supernova
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
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?
astrophysics astronomy supernova
$endgroup$
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
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
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?
astrophysics astronomy supernova
$endgroup$
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
astrophysics astronomy supernova
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
|
show 2 more comments
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
|
show 2 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Iron comes from exploding white dwarfs and exploding massive stars(Wikipedia).
(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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Iron comes from exploding white dwarfs and exploding massive stars(Wikipedia).
(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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Iron comes from exploding white dwarfs and exploding massive stars(Wikipedia).
(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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Iron comes from exploding white dwarfs and exploding massive stars(Wikipedia).
(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.
$endgroup$
Iron comes from exploding white dwarfs and exploding massive stars(Wikipedia).
(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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
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.
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.
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.
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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

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