CHEM - Uranium isotope relative abundance at diff times

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on determining the relative abundances of uranium isotopes at the time of Earth's formation, approximately 4.6 billion years ago. Current abundances are 99.2745% 238U, 0.7196% 235U, and 0.0055% 234U. Participants emphasize the importance of knowing the half-lives of these isotopes to calculate their past ratios using the decay equations provided. There is a suggestion to consolidate questions in one post to avoid redundancy and improve assistance. The conversation highlights the collaborative effort to solve the problem effectively.
thiev
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
1. Homework Statement

The relative abundance of uranium isotopes in today’s Earth crustal material is:
99.2745% 238U
0.7196% 235U
0.0055% 234U
What were the relative abundances when the Earth was formed 4.6x109 years ago?


2. Homework Equations

t = age = 1/lambda * ln(N/No)

N = No*e^lambda*t

3. The Attempt at a Solution

i don't know how to approch this...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey,

I agree with LowlyPion in the other post that you need to know the half-lives and then I think it will be a matter of ratios.

Just post a question the once for the future. This is so people helping you are seeing what everyone is saying and not repeating work that has already been done. We only want to help. :biggrin:

The Bob
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
View full post »

Similar threads

Uranium isotope relative abundance at diff times
Replies
1
Views
3K
How Is Uranium Isotope Enrichment Achieved Through Effusion?
Replies
1
Views
1K
Abundancy of Uranium 235 when the earth was formed.
Replies
4
Views
4K
Ratio of rms speeds of two isotopes
Replies
1
Views
5K
Calculating the Isotope Ratio of Uranium 235 and 238 4.5 Billion Years Ago
Replies
4
Views
2K
Age of Sample: U-235 & U-238 Abundances
Replies
2
Views
1K
Possible title: Isotope Abundance Calculations: Where Did I Go Wrong?
Replies
9
Views
12K
How can I calculate sieverts from the activity of depleted uranium?
Replies
7
Views
6K
Ageing of the universe using percentages of Uranium?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Nuclear u-235 and u-238 isotope half life question
Replies
3
Views
7K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top