Thread 16836892

Hello /sci/, I'm a Nuclear Reactor Operator in the United States Navy (A.K.A College dropout). I was wondering if there's any relation between binding energy per nucleon and a standard stress-strain curve (for argument we'll use high strength molybdenum steel)? I know this teeters on numerology-tier coincidence, however, is it so far-fetched to assume binding energy is any different than physical stress? What are your thoughts? Am I a retard? Please discuss.

>>16836892 (OP)
bump

The only analogy (and incorrect) that I can think about is:
>the Fe peak is eq. to the UTS because all the "internal structure" (imagine layers) are perfectly aligned for bond strength
>As soon as you add more nucleons they'll form more stable substructures with less bonding strength between them (imagine cracks)
>below the Fe-peak adding more nucleons will "tense-align" the internal structure
>anything below sulfur will be too influenced by quantum physics and the magic numbers, all those peaks and valleys are similar to Fe peaks but for different reasons

>>16837091
is it merely a coincidence? Is there underlying meaning?

it's sort of the other way around.
imagine a bar of steel, but the bar only has two atoms. do a tensile test. What value of the bond will contribute to the value you get out of the tensile test?
now imagine 3 atoms. and 6. Eventually, the value that matters changes....

>>16836892 (OP)
Yes, you're retarded. The binding energy is due to the strong nuclear force, inter-atomic forces are due to electromagnetism. There is no relation except if you look hard enough in science you will find graphs that coincidentally match.

>>16837167
Is it not strange to you that the graphs fit eerily similar? again, I am but a fool next to you scientific titans (graduated with a 2.0 in mechanical engineering). I appreciate your input non-the-less anon.

>>16837170
What fit? It's a graph with a peak that has been scaled to look similar. Hardly proof of a fundamental law of the universe.

>>16836892 (OP)
I guess, in a material and an atom there is an ideal geometric configuration of particles that balances opposing forces to give the maximum cohesion.

>>16836892 (OP)
>I'm a Nuclear
So you're gay?

>>16837170
There are only so many possibilities for functions that describe things, there are bound to be some repeats

>>16837174
No. Coincidences happen, and I can't see any cause for a relation.
Unless your beam is atomically shifting through the whole periodic table as you stretch it, it shouldn't even be relevant.

>>16836892 (OP)
>Am I a retard?
How about a troll?