How Do You Determine the Decay Constant from a Secondary Graph?

AI Thread Summary
To determine the decay constant, k, for the nuclear decay of 137Ba*, a secondary graph is needed, which involves linearizing the data by taking the natural logarithm (LN) of radiation counts. The initial graph plotted radiation counts versus time, but the secondary graph should help in graphically determining k. The equation 0.693/k relates to the half-life, and users are encouraged to attach units to their equations for clarity. The linearized graph may not seem immediately helpful, but it is essential for deriving the decay constant through further algebraic manipulation. Understanding the relationship between the graphs and the decay process is crucial for accurate analysis.
Ritzycat
Messages
170
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


Create a secondary graph that allows you to graphically determine the decay constant, k, for the observed nucklear decay of 137Ba*.

Homework Equations


0.693/k = half life
Something with an LN in it

The Attempt at a Solution


I have no idea what it means by "secondary graph". I have absolutely no guidance on what the "secondary graph" is. My first graph was radiation counts vs time, but now it wants this elusive "secondary graph" that will supposedly help me to "graphically determine the decay constant".

I made a linearized graph, if that means anything, by taking LN of the Y axis (radiation counts). I don't see how this helps me though.

Note that in this lab, 137Ba* is decaying to 137Ba through photon emission (gamma radiation)
 

Attachments

  • upload_2014-11-26_8-16-58.png
    upload_2014-11-26_8-16-58.png
    2.8 KB · Views: 493
Physics news on Phys.org
Ritzycat said:
I made a linearized graph, if that means anything, by taking LN of the Y axis (radiation counts).
I guess this is meant by "secondary graph" (where the "primary graph" was the linear scale).

Ritzycat said:
I don't see how this helps me though.
You have an equation there for your fit. Attach units to it and after some algebra you get your lifetime out of it.
 
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...
Back
Top