Derivation for Time to Max Radioactivity Transient Equilibrium

matthewt
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm having a bit of difficulty deriving the time to max activity for the case of transient equilibrium for a parent-daughter.

This is where I want to get to , tm = (1 / (λ1-λ2)) * 1n(λ1/λ2)

I believe there is an alternative equation for tm as well expressed in terms of half-life.

I would be gratefeul if someone could walk me through a derivation,

BW,
Matt
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you mean that you have some parent substance, with a given half-life time, which produces some daughter substance, with another given half-life time (which then decays into an inactive substance), and you need to find out the time it gets for the mix to attain maximum activity?
 
that's right. For the case of a Mo-99 and Tc-99m generator, at t=0, let the activity of Tc-99m be zero. The activity of Tc99m will increase until it reaches a maximum value, but will then start to decline as per transient equilibrium. I think using the bateman equations you can derive an expression for Tmax, the time it takes for the Tc-99m to reach it's max activity (which is ~ 24 hours). A derivation of that equation is what I'm after.

thanks,
matt
 
Do you understand how the single-step decay equation is obtained and solved?
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top