Talk:Q value (nuclear science)

Comment

"Sergent's Rule" should have it's own page and should certainly not link back to this page. Charles Baynham (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment

this is referring to the same thing as q-values for physics...

Comment

Just a query on the binding energy expression for Q in the definition section, the use of mass and binding energy is a little unclear. If mass is meant to signify rest mass then <math> M = Zm_p + Nm_n + B <\math>, which would mean <math> Q = M_i - M_f = B_i - B_f <\math> with conservation of N and Z. I'm not a Nuclear Physicist so don't want to just change the page outright, but it seems <math> m_i, m_f <\math> are representing nucleon masses and the entire rest mass in different parts of the section. H bux2018 (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Note: Apologies for not getting the math notation right, didn't have time to fiddle and this is my first wiki post

Requested move

We got a few choices here...

• Q values → Q value (physics)
• Q values → Q value (nuclear physics)
• Q values → Q value (nuclear chemistry)
• Q values → Q value (nuclear science)

"Q values" is no less ambiguous than "Q value. The plural doesn't tell anyone "well obviously this refers to the amount of energy released by a nuclear reaction!". Personally, I think Q value (nuclear science) would be the best choice. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I always thought Q referred to selectivity (electronic) or rational numbers. :-) JRSpriggs (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done, with the possibility of further suggestions if anyone's not happy with the title chosen.--Kotniski (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Measurement

How is this Q quantity measured for nuclear reactions? Are there nuclear calorimeters?--193.231.19.53 (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

why wouldn't "normal" calorimeters do the job for low energy decays? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Q-value calculation in beta decay

It appears that one gets wrong values for beta decay Q-values if one doesn't ignore the mass of the electron. Apparently the atomic mass values always include all electrons and thus in electron capture and electron emission, the electron is to be ignored. Now, is this the case in positron emission as well? Or does the mass need to be added to the correct side of the equation here? I'd assume the positron to be equal in mass to its antiparticle, the electron, but then it might well not be for some arcane reason and well below our current ability to detect it... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)