Age of Sample: U-235 & U-238 Abundances

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the age of a sample based on the isotopic abundances of U-235 and U-238, which are given as 0.72% and 99.27%, respectively. The user attempts to apply the decay equations for both isotopes, using the relationship between their abundances at present and at the time of formation. It is confirmed that the initial abundance ratio can be assumed to be 1, allowing for the calculation of the age by setting the ratio of current abundances equal to the exponential decay formula. The final advice is to solve for time (t) using the provided abundances. The conversation emphasizes the importance of correctly applying the decay equations to determine the sample's age.
Purple Baron
Messages
9
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The isostopc abundances of a sample is U-235 and U-238 are 0.72 and 99.27 respectively; what is the age of the sample? (assume isotope abundance was equal when sample was formed)

Homework Equations


\lambda=\frac{ln2}{ t_{\frac{1}{2}}}

The Attempt at a Solution


for U-238 N_{238}(T)=N_{238}(t)e^{\lambda _{238}t}
U-235 N_{235}(T)=N_{235}(t)e^{\lambda _{235}t}
T is time at present and t is time of sample formation.

diving the two equations gives
\frac{N_{238}(T)}{N_{235}(T)}=\frac{N_{238}(t)}{N_{235}(t)}e^{(\lambda _{238}- \lambda _{235})t}

From the assumption, one can say \frac{N_{238}(t)}{N_{235}(t)}=1
It's here where I'm not sure; do i just say that \frac{N_{238}(T)}{N_{235}(T)}=\frac{99.27}{0.72} and solve for t or am I missing something? Thanks

EDIT: Sorry, I can't get my latex to work, I can't seem to fix it
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I fixed the two broken equations, but the first one looks odd.
Yes, just do that and solve for t.
 
Thanks for that, I fixed the first equation.
 
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