Half-value thickness for barium 137m

  • Thread starter Thread starter fleetingmoment
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Thickness
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on determining the half-value thickness of gamma rays from barium 137m in lead, emphasizing the relationship between gamma photon energy and required material thickness. Participants note that higher gamma energy correlates with increased thickness needed to reduce intensity by half. One user expresses confusion about finding the gamma energy for barium 137m and how to compare it with the graph provided. After some searching, they identify the gamma energy for barium 137m as 662 keV, which they plan to use for further calculations. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding gamma energy values in relation to material attenuation.
fleetingmoment
Messages
18
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


The half-value layer (thickness) of gamma rays in lead is dependent on the energy of the gamma photons before they enter the lead. Find the graph which shows the relationship between the energy of the gamma photons (pasted below) and the half-value layer and read their energy. In your data book (we didn't get one or even a photocopy of the page), look up the energy of gamma photons emitted by barium 137* and compare it with the energy from the graph.
Barium 137 hvl over meV copy.png

Homework Equations


upload_2017-5-6_10-33-26.png


The Attempt at a Solution


Looking at the graph, it seems to be telling me that an increase in gamma energy at the entry point of a material corresponds with an increase in material thickness needed to cut this energy by half. I'm not really sure I understand the second part of the question, though. For one thing I don't have any data for the gamma energy associated with barium 137*, though I did read (it may have been on Wikipedia) that gamma energies are typically a few hundred kilo-electronvolts. For another, assuming I did manage to find the energy, what does it mean by 'compare it with the energy from the graph'? I imagine it means that I would take the stated energy and insert it into
upload_2017-5-6_10-26-28.png

as a function I(x) and then solve for I(0) and I(n), comparing the results with several points on the graph shown. I hope I am on the right track. Could someone please tell me what the gamma energy for barium 137* is?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
fleetingmoment said:
Could someone please tell me what the gamma energy for barium 137* is?
How about a web search on "barium 137"?
 
Hi kuruman,
I conducted several, but got sick of pages and pages of information about half-life etc. Luckily I've just tried again and lo and behold I found a page which told me the following: 'The energies of both the beta decay of cesium-137 and the subsequent gamma decay of the excited barium 137 are 512 keV and 662 keV, respectively.', which I'm going to run with.
Thank you.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top