Age of Seashell: Calculating 14-C Half Life

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the age of a seashell using the half-life of carbon-14 (14-C). The original poster presents a problem involving the decay of 14-C, specifically how long it takes for the isotopic concentration to decrease from its initial value to 90% and then to 99%.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply the decay formula to determine the age of the seashell based on the percentage of 14-C remaining. They express uncertainty regarding the second part of the problem, specifically the time taken to reach 99% decay compared to the time for 90% decay. Other participants question the accuracy of the decay constant and suggest considering the implications of non-linear decay.

Discussion Status

Some participants provide feedback on the calculations, noting potential issues with the precision of the decay constant. There is an ongoing exploration of the relationship between the percentages of decay and the time taken, with suggestions to graph the decay function for better understanding.

Contextual Notes

Participants are discussing the implications of using different levels of precision in calculations and the non-linear nature of exponential decay, which may lead to confusion regarding expected outcomes.

matt222
Messages
130
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



seashell HAVE 90% of 14-C as a livining shell of the same size half life is 5570 years, how old is it in years

how many yrs did it take for 14-C to diminish from its initial value to 99% of that?

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



for the first part of problem 90% N0=N0exp(-kt), where k is decay constant from this k=1.24x10^-4
so t=847 years

for the second part of the problem we have the same decay constant k, so 99%N0=N0exp(-kt)

so for t I got t=81.1years

I think the first part is ok but i am not sure i about the second one
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks good to me. Is your 3 digit accuracy for k sufficient? If I were you, I would keep about 5 digit accuracy because exponent accuracy strongly affects the accuracy of the power.
 
but it confused me the second part I am not sure about it 81 years compared to 847 years
 
I get 80.8 rather than 81.1, keeping all the digits on my calculator until rounding the final answer. You don't say what you are confused about. If you mean losing 1% in one tenth the time it loses 10%, that seems almost too reasonable to be true. Normally you can't trust your intuition on non-linear functions. It might be worth graphing the decay function on your calculator or computer to see if the function is fairly linear in that range.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
11K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K