Nuclear Chemistry: Solving Ionizing Intensity

AI Thread Summary
To calculate the ionizing intensity of radiation in roentgens, it's essential to convert the given ionization rate of 26.2 x 10^12 atoms per cubic centimeter into ion pairs. Each ionization event typically generates a specific number of ion pairs, which is necessary for the conversion. The relationship between roentgens and energy is noted, with 1 roentgen equating to 93.3 x 10^-3 J/g. Understanding these conversions and the generation of ion pairs is crucial for solving the problem effectively. The discussion emphasizes the need for clarity in converting units and applying the relevant equations.
SamTsui86
Messages
30
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



If X radiation ionizes 26.2 X 1012 atoms per cemtimeter cubed, what is the ionizing intensity of the radiation measured in roentgens ?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



Help, I have never seen atoms per centimeter cubed before, I know that 1 roentgens is 93.3e-3 J/g, but I don't know how to get atoms per centimeter cubed to that?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
this from Wiki:

"It is the amount of radiation required to liberate positive and negative charges of one electrostatic unit of charge in 1 cm³ of air at standard temperature and pressure (STP). This corresponds to the generation of approximately 2.08×10^9 ion pairs."


You must determine how many ion pairs are generated per ionization event.
eg. 26.2 X 10^12 atoms generates how many ion pairs?
 
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...
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