Problem integrating gamma ray absorption model

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around integrating a gamma ray absorption model to understand the relationship between the thickness of shielding materials and the intensity of gamma radiation. The initial equation presented is ΔI = -μΔX, leading to the integrated form I = I0e^(-μx), where I0 represents the incident intensity. A participant seeks clarification on the origin of the term I0, realizing it corresponds to the initial intensity when slab thickness is zero, which serves as an integration constant. This insight highlights the importance of recognizing initial conditions in mathematical modeling. The conversation concludes with appreciation for the clarification provided.
d3ntr0n
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


In this lab various thicknesses of a few materials are placed between a source of gamma radiation and a couple different detectors. It is reasonable to assume that some small change in the thickness of the shielding would produce a proportional change in the intensity of the gamma rays measured on the other side. If we define I to be the incident intensity of the gamma rays upon the shielding slab of thickness ΔX, and the emerging intensity on the other side of the shielding to be I’ with proportionality constant µ, we can describe the hypothesis with the simple model:

I) = -μΔX
I

According to the lab manual the solution to the integration of this equation yields

I = I0e^(-μx) ; Where I0 is the incident intensity

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
So for an infinitesimally small change delta, we would use the Latin 'd' giving

dI = -μdX
I

integrating both sides and exponentiating then yields

I = e^(-μX)

So where does the term I0 come from? Can someone show me where my error is?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When the slab thickness is zero there is an initial intensity. That corresponds to an integration constant.
 
Oh wow. Duh. Thank you gneill, I appreciate that.
 
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 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
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