Alpha Particle Spectroscopy - Is My Method Correct?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around alpha particle spectroscopy using a cloud chamber setup. The original poster is attempting to validate their method of varying distance while employing the classical Bethe-Bloch equation to analyze alpha particle energy and range. They express concerns about a singularity in their calculations and the quantification of uncertainty in their results.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants question the methodology of varying distance in a cloud chamber and the feasibility of plotting distance against alpha energy. There are discussions about the appropriateness of the Bethe-Bloch model for the energies involved and the implications of using different integration methods for calculating range.

Discussion Status

Some participants express confusion about the original poster's approach and the validity of the Bethe-Bloch model in this context. There is an ongoing exploration of the integration methods used and their agreement with experimental data, but no consensus has been reached regarding the correctness of the original poster's method.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential issues with the Bethe-Bloch model at low energies and the need for clarity on how distance is varied in the experimental setup. The original poster's concerns about singularities and uncertainty quantification are also noted as points of discussion.

Physy
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Hey, first time poster here, I'm current writing up a lab report I just wanted to check my method is correct. I'm doing alpha particle spectroscopy using a cloud chamber setup. Most published reports seem to vary pressure (so the mass thickness varies). Our chamber let us vary pressure and distance, I decided to write my report explicitly around varying distance.

I've used the classical Beth-Bloch equation as the model. By plotting x vs alpha energy E I used function fitting to get a third order polynomial out, by taking the derivative of this I found dE/dx as a second order polynomial. Substituting the energy at each point I evaulated -dE/dx at each point and thus, -dX/dE. By plotting E vs -dX/dE I can integrate this to determine the range.

It gets complicated as there's a singularity at 160 KeV (From the log part of the BB equation). So far I overcame this by integrating to the limits of initial energy to the singularity point giving me an under estimate for the area (and hence range). I am not sure if this is the best approach, or how to quantify uncertainty. I used 2 integration methods, the trapezium rule and fitting the function as a high order polynomial and integrating that analytically, is that acceptable?

Homework Equations


N/A

The Attempt at a Solution


N/A

Thanks, sorry if this is unclear, feel free to point that out.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't understand what you did.

x is distance? How do you vary distance in a cloud chamber? Every track will have some distance, that is a measurement value.
How can you plot distance vs alpha energy? Do you have some emitters with known energy and plot the distribution of distances?

Physy said:
I've used the classical Beth-Bloch equation as the model.
That is a problematic model for typical energies of radioactive decays. You get ##\beta \leq 0.05##, especially below 1 MeV the model won't work.

Physy said:
By plotting E vs -dX/dE I can integrate this to determine the range.
But that was a measurement before?
 
mfb said:
I don't understand what you did.

x is distance? How do you vary distance in a cloud chamber? Every track will have some distance, that is a measurement value.
How can you plot distance vs alpha energy? Do you have some emitters with known energy and plot the distribution of distances?

That is a problematic model for typical energies of radioactive decays. You get ##\beta \leq 0.05##, especially below 1 MeV the model won't work.

But that was a measurement before?

Basically we used an MCA/MCB to measure the peak energy at various distances. http://www.cityu.edu.hk/ap/nru/pub_j96.pdf very similar to this report here.

By plotting the SRIM simulations and my model I saw that by approximating the equation as a third order polynomial doesn't work as below the low energy limit the BB model breaks down (the nuclear stopping power becomes the most prominent and overall stopping power increases) got some nice graphs that show this and outline why my method produces an underestimate.

A quick estimate for the range was taken by measuring the distance at which the peak energy is not distinguishable with background noise levels.
 
Ah, I see.

Why do you need Bethe-Bloch? As comparison, sure (without expecting a match for most of the energy range), but you have your own experimental values for dE/dx.

Physy said:
I used 2 integration methods, the trapezium rule and fitting the function as a high order polynomial and integrating that analytically, is that acceptable?
That depends on your data and the fit. Do you get a reasonable agreement between the methods, and with the measured range value?
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
32K