How Do You Determine the Natural Abundance of 244Hb and 240Hb?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eddzzz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Abundance Natural
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the natural abundance of isotopes 244Hb and 240Hb. The half-life of 244Hb is established as 10 million years, with a corresponding mean life of approximately 7.59 trillion minutes. A sample containing 7.59 trillion atoms of 244Hb is expected to decay at a rate of one atom per minute. The calculations lead to the conclusion that the natural abundance of 240Hb is about 3.02×10^-9, suggesting that if no natural source of 244Hb exists, the sample of Hibernium cannot be older than 283 million years. The thread emphasizes the importance of accurate decay calculations in determining isotope abundance.
Eddzzz
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I thought this area was appropriate for this question from a previous exam paper which I just need checking. So:

2013_02_26_22_28_17.jpg


Working out:

The half-life of 244Hb is 10 million years.
The half-life of 244Hb is 5.2595×10^12 minutes.
The mean life of 244Hb is 7.58783677×10^12 minutes.
So if you had a sample of 7.58783677×10^12 atoms of 244Hb, you could expect about 1 decay a minute.

You have x grams of 244Hb and 1-x grams of 240Hb.
Thus you have about x/244 moles of 244Hb.
Thus you have about 2.468×10^21×x atoms of 244Hb.
Since this sample decays one atom per minute, we know 2.468×10^21×x = 7.58783677×10^12.
Or x = (1/ln 2)(10 million years / 1 minute) (244 grams/mole / ( N_A per mole * 1 gram ) = 3.07×10^-9

Natural abundance of 240Hb on a per atom basis is ( x / 244)/ ( ( x / 244) + ( (1-x) / 240) ) = 60 x/(61 - x). Why?
So the natural abundance of 240Hb is about 3.02×10^-9.

If there is no natural source of 244Hb, this implies that the sample of Hibernium is no more than about 283 million years old.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Feel free to move if its in the wrong place (which I think it is!)
 
anyone?
 
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