From Uranium isotope to thorium isotope

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orion78
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Isotope Uranium
AI Thread Summary
Converting uranium-238 to thorium requires specific decay processes, with electron capture occurring zero times and alpha decay occurring once. The resulting thorium isotope has a mass number of 234 and an atomic number of 90. The discussion clarifies that the original interpretation of "one times" is incorrect due to grammatical concerns, but the decay processes are accurately defined. The possibility of beta decay is ruled out based on the question's wording. Therefore, the correct answers are confirmed as zero for electron capture, one for alpha decay, with the resulting isotope's mass and atomic numbers specified.
Orion78
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
I need to complete the following sentence. If I think that electron capture or alpha decay does not occur in my decay process, I have to type a '0' (zero) in the appropriate box:

Converting an atom of the isotope Uranium (238-92) into an atom of thorium can be accomplished if an electron capture process occurs___times and an alpha decay occurs ___times. The resulting isotope has a mass number___ and an atomic number___ .

Initially I thought the right answers were: zero, one, 234, 90. But after I realized that I cannot say one times because times is plural. Is it only one right answer of there are different options? The resulting isotope has definitely a atomic number of 90, but I am not sure about the rest. Thanks for your help
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your answers are quite correct. There is no other answer because there is no allowance for a beta decay, and electron capture processes would usually only happen with a proton-rich isotope (mass number lower than those of the most stable or abundant isotopes of the element).

If beta decays were allowed for, then "beta (-) decay occurs 2 times and alpha decay occurs 2 times ... 90 ... 230 ..." might be an alternative answer, but the question is simply not worded that way.

I think you should ignore the slightly ungrammatical "1 times" in a question like this.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top