Evening all.

I had some calculations to do for my physics assignment on radioactivity. One of the questions I am stuck on - the actual calculation was very simple but then it asks me to state one assumption made, but I dunno what assumtions I did make LOL!

Please can anyone help? Here's the question (and my calculation):

1. A radioactive source emits β particles. It has an activity of 2.8 × 107 Bq. Estimate the number of β particles emitted in a time interval of 2.0 minutes. State one assumption made.

A = dN / dt

A x dt = dN

(2.8 × 10^7) x 120 = 3.36 x 10^9

Would reeeealy appreciate some help, my teacher doesn't help us whatsoever LOL!

Thank you x

I had some calculations to do for my physics assignment on radioactivity. One of the questions I am stuck on - the actual calculation was very simple but then it asks me to state one assumption made, but I dunno what assumtions I did make LOL!

Please can anyone help? Here's the question (and my calculation):

1. A radioactive source emits β particles. It has an activity of 2.8 × 107 Bq. Estimate the number of β particles emitted in a time interval of 2.0 minutes. State one assumption made.

A = dN / dt

A x dt = dN

(2.8 × 10^7) x 120 = 3.36 x 10^9

Would reeeealy appreciate some help, my teacher doesn't help us whatsoever LOL!

Thank you x

Tags:

Options

## All Comments

(51) Jump to unreadPost a commentEdited By: cannyscot on Dec 05, 2010 22:43Ooh, I think you are right (I feel rather stupid) :{

Can I ask you one more, please? I only had two corrections through my whole assignment and haven't been able to figure them out LOL!

This is a (very) rough graph which I submotted and my teacher simply said that it's not correct but I just can't figure out what is right then :(

I don't know who that is LOL!

It's level 3 (A-level standard) science babe - comprises of chemistry, biology, physics and maths, I am really enjoying it but it is a LOT of extra work outside of college :D

Btw, don't worry about not being able to help - I don't seem able to help myself :D

Hiya, the title info was given to me - I just had to do the graph

I actually drew the graph in pencil on my assignment but just showed it roughly in Paint to give youse an idea. My lines were exponential but teacher said its wrong :(

Note how the points on this graph are connected with

straight linesnot a curved line as you have used.Note how the points on this graph are connected with

straight linesnot a curved line as you have used.Thanks again cannyscot, but the problem is that I need to show the sodium-24 decay on the

sameaxis, which is why I only did 27 years for the X-axis (one strontium-24 half-life)I don't understand what I have done wrong oO

Half life % on y axis

time year on x axis

Edited By: bigfoot100 on Dec 05, 2010 23:20Note how the points on this graph are connected with

straight linesnot a curved line as you have used.Thats because they have plotted using straight lines and data points though, it isn't correct. Its an exponential delay, and therefore a smooth curve.

Note how the points on this graph are connected with

straight linesnot a curved line as you have used.Thats because they have plotted using straight lines and data points though, it isn't correct. Its an exponential delay, and therefore a smooth curve.

That's correct, yes - even if I only show one half-life the line should be curved :)

Half life % on y axis

time year on x axis

I can't get that link to work BF x

No sorry - the link isn't working either x

Note how the points on this graph are connected with

straight linesnot a curved line as you have used.Thanks again cannyscot, but the problem is that I need to show the sodium-24 decay on the

sameaxis, which is why I only did 27 years for the X-axis (one strontium-24 half-life)I don't understand what I have done wrong oO[/quote]

OK but on the Strontium graph you have drawn a

curvefrom 100% to 50%.It should have been a

straight line,because you can't assume that decay follows the path of your curve.Joining points on a graph with straight lines is just a convention used in Physics.

You're right that the graph is exponential but the scale of the X axis won't show it (unless you extended it to 300 years as in the example I've posted.)

I have to say that your tutor/teacher is not being very helpful in providing no feedback - the subject is difficult enough withoug some wazzock being deliberately obtuse!

X-Axis is in years, not days ;-)

Note how the points on this graph are connected with

straight linesnot a curved line as you have used.Thanks again cannyscot, but the problem is that I need to show the sodium-24 decay on the

sameaxis, which is why I only did 27 years for the X-axis (one strontium-24 half-life)I don't understand what I have done wrong oO

OK but on the Strontium graph you have drawn a

curvefrom 100% to 50%.It should have been a

straight line,because you can't assume that decay follows the path of your curve.Joining points on a graph with straight lines is just a convention used in Physics.

You're right that the graph is exponential but the scale of the X axis won't show it (unless you extended it to 300 years as in the example I've posted.)

I have to say that your tutor/teacher is not being very helpful in providing no feedback - the subject is difficult enough withoug some wazzock being deliberately obtuse![/quote]

Firstly - thank you soooo much for taking the time to help me, I really do appreciate it

The thing is that first I did draw a straight line from 100% to 50% as I assumed that it was the proportion of one to the other that the question was asking but my teacher said that was wrong.

Then I asked her if I curved the line to 50% would that then be correct, but she said "No"

The teacher is very good at explaining in class but when it comes to assignments, if you get a wrong answer she will simply cross it and refuse to help at all, not even a point in the right direction :(

I am the best student in my class attitude and grade-wise but she still just won't help at all and if you don't get the right answer by the final draft then you lose that whole grade (pass/merit/distinction)

Thank you for joining :)

I don't get what you are saying though, sorry - I am trying to fit a 15 hour half-life into 1 year gaps :(

X-Axis is in years, not days ;-)

oops X)

You have to increase the timespan of your X-axis so that the exponential nature of Strontium's decay is obvious.

Thanks, I thought it was - though its very hard to show the exponential curve for sodium :(

Thanks very much for the input, you've been most helpful

Edited By: Mrs.Z on Dec 05, 2010 23:38curvefrom 100% to 50%.It should have been a

straight line,because you can't assume that decay follows the path of your curve.Joining points on a graph with straight lines is just a convention used in Physics.

You're right that the graph is exponential but the scale of the X axis won't show it (unless you extended it to 300 years as in the example I've posted.)

I don't really agree with this - it

isan exponential decay, therefore the convention (when straight lines are desired) is that it should be drawn with logarithmic scales. When drawn with linear scales, youdoneed to assume the curves...Edited By: jah128 on Dec 05, 2010 23:38You have to increase the timespan of your X-axis so that the exponential nature of Strontium's decay is obvious.

Ok I will try that, but by making the graph longer - I don't want to decrease the size of my gaps as they are as it will make things harder for the sodium line :)

Thanks sooooo much for your help

Thanks, I thought it was - though its very hard to show the exponential curve for sodium :(

I agree seems a pointless exercise they should have chosen more comparable half lives.

Thanks, I thought it was - though its very hard to show the exponential curve for sodium :(

I agree seems a pointless exercise they should have chosen more comparable half lives.

Thanks, I thought it was - though its very hard to show the exponential curve for sodium :(

I agree seems a pointless exercise they should have chosen more comparable half lives.

I totally agree - when we first got the assignment I asked her if there was a mistake in one of the units :(

I totally agree - when we first got the assignment I asked her if there was a mistake in one of the units :(

Well it was a lesson for me lol the first time I did it I treated them both as years.

I have a problem with they way science is taught, most of the stuff is totally irrelevant to anything. I am 3/4 through an Physics degree and I have basically made myself forget A-level physics, and begun again. There needs to be a big shake up in how it is taught.

I totally agree - when we first got the assignment I asked her if there was a mistake in one of the units :(

Well it was a lesson for me lol the first time I did it I treated them both as years.

I have a problem with they way science is taught, most of the stuff is totally irrelevant to anything. I am 3/4 through an Physics degree and I have basically made myself forget A-level physics, and begun again. There needs to be a big shake up in how it is taught.

I get what you are saying - we aren't doing a full physics A-level, it is a combination of all the sciences but I do sometimes wonder about what we are learning and the things they put particular focus on oO

Just had another thought.

I was niggled about your inability to show the decay of Sodium properly.

So,

Use a timescale of

hoursfor the X axis, say 90 hours, which will show the exponential decay of the Sodium clearly.The graph for Strontium on that scale will be a straight line parallel to the X axis at 100%.

The object of the exercise to the show how markedly different are the rates of decay of different substances.

In the grand scheme of things if you started off with an equal amount of str-90 & Na-24 , using their half-life decay rates , then using your scale ,in one years time there'll be very very very very little of the original starting Na-24 left whereas the mass of the str-90 would hardly have decayed so graphscale-wise the blue line should only go vertically straight down ( as it can be safe to assume it's decayed to near enough nothing)or if it curves to the right it should be at a right angle where both X&Y axes meet. ( or the curve should go through "zero")

...I might be wrong ..

Just had another thought.

I was niggled about your inability to show the decay of Sodium properly.

So,

Use a timescale of

hoursfor the X axis, say 90 hours, which will show the exponential decay of the Sodium clearly.The graph for Strontium on that scale will be a straight line parallel to the X axis at 100%.

The object of the exercise to the show how markedly different are the rates of decay of different substances.

That is actually a very good idea, I am going to give that a go - it would probably look more presentable on paper too. I am making the assumption that I should be showing a half-life for each one but I guess that that is not necessarily the case :{

In the grand scheme of things if you started off with an equal amount of str-90 & Na-24 , using their half-life decay rates , then using your scale ,in one years time there'll be very very very very little of the original starting Na-24 left whereas the mass of the str-90 would hardly have decayed so graphscale-wise the blue line should only go vertically straight down ( as it can be safe to assume it's decayed to near enough nothing)or if it curves to the right it should be at a right angle where both X&Y axes meet. ( or the curve should go through "zero")

...I might be wrong ..

Hiya, yes on my graph the Sodium line ran practically straight down the y-axis but I wasn't sure if I should cut the line somewhere or take it all the way to 27 years oO

If I use Cannyscots suggestion then this wouldn't be a problem :)

thank you, I wasn't sure at which point the percentage remaining would be so small that it would be negligible :D

I am going to have a go at Cannyscots way before anything else :)

Edited By: Mrs.Z on Dec 06, 2010 00:12