Atoms decay via alpha emission have a half-life of 150 min

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the number of alpha particles emitted from a sample of 2.3 x 10^10 atoms with a half-life of 150 minutes. Initial calculations were corrected to find that after 30 minutes, approximately 2.00 x 10^10 atoms remain, and after 160 minutes, about 1.10 x 10^10 atoms remain. The difference indicates that approximately 8.98 x 10^9 alpha particles are emitted between 30 and 160 minutes. Participants noted the use of integral calculus is unnecessary since the decay formula is derived from it. The final calculations were confirmed to be accurate.
IKonquer
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
2.3 \cdot 10^{10} atoms decay via alpha emission have a half-life of 150 min.

How many alpha particles are emitted between t=30 min and t=160 min?

<br /> \begin{flalign*}<br /> 150 &amp;= \frac{\ln 2}{\lambda}\\<br /> \lambda &amp;= 0.046 <br /> \\<br /> \\<br /> K &amp;= K_{0}e^{(-\lambda)(t)}\\<br /> &amp;= (2.3 \cdot 10^{10})e^{(-0.046)(30)}\\<br /> K_{30} &amp;= 5.79 \cdot 10^{9}<br /> \\<br /> \\<br /> K &amp;= K_{0}e^{(-\lambda)(t)}\\<br /> &amp;= (2.3 \cdot 10^{10})e^{(-0.046)(160)}\\<br /> K_{160} &amp;= 1.46 \cdot 10^{7}<br /> \\<br /> \\<br /> K_{30} - K_{160} = 5.77 \cdot 10^{9} \text{ emitted}<br /> \end{flalign*}<br />

Did I do this correctly? And is there a way to use calculus to do this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
λ = ln(2)/150 ≈ 0.004621

You're off by a factor of 10.

K30 represents the number of atoms which remain undecayed after 30 minutes. The number you have for K30 is way under half of the initial sample, in a time that's 1/5 of the half-life.
 
Nice catch! Does it look right now? Also is there a way of using integral calculus to solve this?

<br /> <br /> \begin{flalign*}<br /> 150 &amp;= \frac{\ln 2}{\lambda}\\<br /> \lambda &amp;= 0.0046 <br /> \\<br /> \\<br /> K &amp;= K_{0}e^{(-\lambda)(t)}\\<br /> &amp;= (2.3 \cdot 10^{10})e^{(-0.0046)(30)}\\<br /> K_{30} &amp;= 2.00 \cdot 10^{10}<br /> \\<br /> \\<br /> K &amp;= K_{0}e^{(-\lambda)(t)}\\<br /> &amp;= (2.3 \cdot 10^{10})e^{(-0.0046)(160)}\\<br /> K_{160} &amp;= 1.10 \cdot 10^{10}<br /> \\<br /> \\<br /> K_{30} - K_{160} = 8.98 \cdot 10^{9} \text{ emitted}<br /> \end{flalign*}<br /> <br />
 
Yes, that seems better. I don't know why you want to use integral calculus, since the formula for radioactive decay was derived using integral calculus in the first place.
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K