Talk:Binding energy

message: I am getting confused about what just the term "Binding Energy" means when used for atoms.
For example, if you go to Uranium-235, the table on the left says "Binding Energy: 1783870+keV".  But when you click on that link you get redirected to this page which does not say what "Binding energy" means.
When I do the calculations, it seems that the Uranium-235 page is talking about nuclear binding energy plus electron binding energy.  But what is "atomic binding energy" and how does it differ from "electron binding energy"?  The wording makes them sound exactly the same.  What's the difference between "dissembling an atom into free electrons and a nucleus"  and "free[ing] electrons from their atomic orbits." ?
58.70.4.94 (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Binding energy

message: What this page lacks most is a graphic of The Nuclear Binding Energy Curve--Chealer 10:10, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
:done, and replaced the old one which was inaccurate and confusing mastodon 17:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Graph

message: I was browsing through articles and read the following, which struck me as not quite accurate:
" the atomic mass of hydrogen (which is a lone proton) is 1.00794 Amu, "
First, hydrogen is not a lone proton, it is a proton plus an electron (sorry, nit-picking here) and second that atomic mass represents the weighted average mass of hydrogen based on isotopic abundance. The mass of a proton is (by definition) 1.0. This makes the statement that follows about C-12 having lost mass to binding energy meaningless, doesn't it?
COMMENT: This section should probably be re-done using grams, since amu just confuses things. An amu is actually 1/12th of a carbon ATOM, so electrons are counted there, too. If you want to use amus, you have to compare a carbon atom (12 amus) to 6 hydrogen atoms plus 6 electrons plus 6 neutrons, all in amus. That gives you nuclear packing energy and ignores the small atomic binding energy.  An easier way is to just back-calculate the weight of a carbon nucleus from 12 amu minus 12 electrons, and then subtract it from the mass of 6 free protons and neutrons. Sbharris 21:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The mass of a free proton is 1.00727646677 u. The mass of a free neutron is 1.0086649156 u. The average mass of neutron+proton/2 in carbon 12 is 1.000 exactly minus 1/2 electron + binding energy of 1/2 carbon electron = 0.99945 u or so (we can't use 1, since that's for neutral whole carbon atoms, not nuclei). The average nucleon mass in Ni-62 is about the average of (28p+34n)/62 = 1.008038 u, from which we must subtract the binding energy per nucleon. This binding energ is nearly 8.8 MeV, which is  u/931.494028 = .009447 u. So the average nucleon mass in Ni-62 is not 1.0080, but 0.99859. Surprise, stronger than carbon. As you go on past Ni-62, you see this number rise again. If it goes over 1.000 it doesn't matter, since that's just the average mass of p+n-(e/2) in C-12 not FREE p, or even p+n/2. The number it won't go over, is the average mass of the free particles that make up heavy nuclei, which is 3n + 2p/5 = 1.0081 u for nucleons. But again, don't forget to subtract the rest mass of electrons from isotope masses. And for large isotopes, their binding energy must be ADDED and (rest) mass of their electrons SUBTRACTED, to get the bare nuclear mass. SBHarris 20:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

text: The same nuclide should have the same binding energy in the ground state, and thus the same mass, no matter how it's made. Find anything different and you get the Nobel Prize. SBHarris 04:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Last statement about binding energy

message: I added the cleanup tag on November 1, 2008. The math and general ideas are good, but the syntax and presentation need tightening up to be clearer. Have an opening section stating the definition in layman's terms, then continue on to the more in-depth math and better detail.PJtP (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: When I pick up a stone (not changing it's temperature, taking it from resting state to resting state, not changing the number or chemical state of its particles), does that stone get "heavier", i.e. does its mass increase? In particular, does the mass of each atomic nucleus in the stone change? Of course, the effect would be unmeasurably small, but imagine this, or the reverse process of lowering matter into a gravitational field, happens on a neutron star (e.g. SGR_1806-20). I believe this is a special case of mass defect, but I've been discussing it with some (ex) physics students and most of them said that the energy that is put into the stone's position is not converted to mass but to "field energy". I think it would be nice to have a definite answer to this question, and maybe also to have it integrated into this page, as a kind of example. Illegal604 (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: When you pick up a stone the gravitational potential energy is stored in the gravitational field, not the atoms of the stone or Earth. It's in the system, but hard to say just where, except somewhere in the field (it's easier to say where it isn't, which isn't that it's not in the stone or Earth). There's no mass defect because energy has been ADDED. The system would get heavier, were it not for the fact that the energy came from YOU, and thus you get lighter. The total mass of the Earth (which includes you) doesn't change. SBHarris 01:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Special case gravitation

message: I'm going to go ahead and remove several of the sections in this article because they are simply copied from other articles. Instead, I'll point out these other articles as examples of binding energy. Natsirtguy (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing sections which are just copied introductions of other pages 

message: It seems that the Synergy comments that keep getting added, and then reverted, are from the Synergy page.  Maybe they shouldn't be there, either. I suppose, though, that the exchange energy for fermions could be considered a synergy, so maybe it actually could make some sense. Gah4 (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of the word in that sense is completely unfamiliar to me, and sounds like a misapplication by someone who does not understand it, but would like to believe that it can be equated to binding energy. The source given in Synergy § Physics does not appear to support the meaning as binding energy.  So I'd suggest that it shouldn't be there either. I've removed it. —Quondum 00:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The binding energy of a system is more than the sum of the components' binding energies. In the English language, there is ONLY ONE word to denote the "whole more than its parts" phenomenon. There is simply no other choice but to use the word "synergy". 91.122.11.68 (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your logic is false. The word "synergy" does not mean "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" in general. It generally means that there is a cooperative interaction, which is not the same thing at all.  And it never refers to the difference between the whole and sum of the parts, and why specifically the energy?  Your extremely pointy perspective is not substantiated by the reference you choose to use, which is turn is not admissible as a reference.  And simply because you can't find a better word, doesn't mean that it is correct.  When have you ever heard of synergy being measured in joules? Desist.  I am reverting your changes (again), for very good reason. —Quondum 14:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you provide a reference to a modern dictionary saying that the word "synergy" does not mean "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" in general? Desist. I am reverting your changes (again) as unreferenced. 91.122.11.68 (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You (91.122.11.68) are edit warring, here as at Synergy. I do not need to find any reference that shows the contrary of what the article claims to remove something that is clearly nonsense. On the contrary, the onus is on you to show (via a notable secondary reference) that synergy and binding energy are the same thing, as you are claiming. I think we are getting to the point where we should have this article semi-protected to keep you from pushing your rather insular POV. —Quondum 16:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "In this case, much of the potential synergy arises from shared binding energy derived from the tethered GAP and effector domains." https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=ru&q=%22the+potential+synergy+arises+from+shared+binding+energy%22 91.122.11.68 (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Arises from" is not the same is "is".  The reference means by "potential for synergy" in this instance.  If someone said the potential for contact arises from proximity, would that mean that contact and proximity are the same thing?  No.  You have reverted the same text for the third time in a short period.  You are being seriously uncooperative – there are now three editors that consider the text as unworthy of keeping.  This is my second strong warning to you about pushing your point of view and edit warring, as I note you have reverted the edit again after my last warning, reaching three reverts within a short period.  You are undeniably edit warring.  —Quondum 17:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

text: That quote does not shed much light. A better source is from R. Buckminster Fuller’s presentation, cited at Synergy#Physics: "The word 'synergy' means 'Behavior of whole systems unpredicted by behavior of any of the systems parts.'" (He also says " Since synergy is the only word having that meaning ...") This definition seems to be related to Fuller's Synergetics, and I don't know how widespread its use is. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

text: I have reverted here and here and warned ip on talk page. Source does not mention synergy. This is wp:original research of the purest kind.  - DVdm (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

text: The lead-in says: "A bound system typically has a lower potential energy than the sum of its constituent parts". But the body of the article does not explain why it is so. That is why the metaphysical word "synergy" must be included in the lead-in. 91.122.11.68 (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not without a proper source--see wp:BURDEN and even less without wp:CONSENSUS on this talk page. That is how Wikipedia works. - DVdm (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went ahead and reverted back to the version without synergy again. The citation which had been added to bolster the claim that synergy is used as a synonym for potential energy was in German. While it is possible that the word synergy is used in this manner in German, it is not used that way in English. (91.122.11.68), could you explain some of your motivations for including these references to synergy in this article? Natsirtguy (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synergy 

message: Substituted at 09:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Binding energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725034147/http://www.thinkquest.org/pls/html/think.site?p_site_id=17940 to http://www.thinkquest.org/pls/html/think.site?p_site_id=17940
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110412045629/http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/binding_energy/binding_energy.html to http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/binding_energy/binding_energy.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The first link worked but the second  arrived at the message "Page cannot be displayed due to robots.txt." Both seemed too low quality to keep in the article. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow editors. I am enrolled in a Technical Editing class at Texas A&M, and I will be editing this article as a part of our Wikipedia project. Please be patient with me as I am still learning. The following is a preliminary list of the tasks I plan to work on:
# Clean up the article's content so that it clearly conveys its information
# Correct the tone of the article so that it doesn't sound like an essay
# Remove redundant information
I will continue to list major issues as they arise. Do not hesitate to reach out! --Scott Rayner (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planning Edits 

message: Am I right in thinking that the formatting of the "Types of Binding Energy" section into a table is inappropriate given the MOS recommendations here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Tables#Inappropriate_use  Etherfire (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it isn't so bad as a table, but it doesn't need to be sortable.  As MOS says, though, a list might be fine. Gah4 (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table? 

message: The article says . It is the energy equivalent of the mass defect, the difference between the mass number of a nucleus and its true measured mass. which sounds wrong.  It should be the atomic mass of the separate protons and neutrons, not the sum of the number of protons and neutrons, commonly called A.  Gah4 (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''. It is the energy equivalent of the mass defect, the difference between the mass number of a nucleus and its true measured mass.'' 

message: How can binding energy represent mass of the nucleon? Binding enrgy is negativ!!!! Ra-raisch (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  quarks