Age of Ax Handle from Dig: Calculating Half-Life of Carbon-14

  • Thread starter Thread starter Soaring Crane
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Half-life
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the age of an ax handle made from ash wood using carbon-14 dating. The piece of wood shows a beta emission of 4 beta/min, while a fresh piece registers at 16 beta/min. The half-life of carbon-14 is established at 5,370 years, leading to confusion about how to apply this to the emissions. It is clarified that the beta emission has halved twice, indicating two half-lives have passed, resulting in an age calculation of 10,740 years for the wood. Understanding the concept of half-lives is crucial for accurate carbon dating.
Soaring Crane
Messages
461
Reaction score
0
An archaeologist digs up a piece of wood believed to be an ax handle from a dig. The wood is from an ash tree. The beta emission from the old piece of wood is 4 beta/min. A similar piece of wood that is freshly cut registers beta emission at 16 beta/min. The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,370 yrs. How old is the piece of wood from the dig?

Is it 5370yrs./2?

Thanks. :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to look up half-life(\lambda). How many half lives are required to reduce 16 to 4 (there's an elegant exponential function for doing these problems BTW)?
 
5370*4, b/c the halflife is cut in half twice
 
Soaring Crane said:
Is it 5370yrs./2?
No it isn't. That's not the way to think of half-life. Don't let the word 'half' confuse you.

greenman100 said:
5370*4, b/c the halflife is cut in half twice

Both your answer and reasoning are wrong. The halflife is never cut in half twice. The beta emission is cut in half twice.

It takes 5370 years for the beta emission to decrease from 16 to 8. Another 5370 years to decrease from 8 to 4. Soaring Crane, you should now be able to determine the total amount of time it takes for the beta emission to decrease from 16 to 4.
 
greenman100 said:
5370*4, b/c the halflife is cut in half twice

Your calculation is correct but, as recon said, your answer and your reasoning (as well as your wording!) are wrong.

"Halflife" is a constant- it doesn't get cut in half. You are correct that the beta emission has been cut in half twice. Each time it is cut in half is one half-life. Okay, "cut in half twice" requires how many half-lives?
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top