Radiation calculation confusion

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around converting exposure rates from mGy/h to becquerels for a 137Cs source, with an exposure rate of 2.50 mGy/h at one meter. The original poster expresses confusion about the conversion process, noting that mGy and becquerels measure different aspects of radiation. They seek clarification on whether a direct conversion is possible or if it requires multiple intermediary units. The conversation highlights the complexities involved in radiation calculations and the need for a clearer understanding of the relationship between exposure and activity. Ultimately, the challenge lies in accurately translating these different radiation metrics.
murdrobe
Messages
29
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



6. If the exposure rate from 137Cs at one metre is 2.50 mGy/h, how many bequerels are present?

Homework Equations



Exposure is a quantity that expresses the radiation delivered to a point at a certain distance.

I1d12 = I2d22
I1 = the radiation intensity at distance d1 from the radiation source.
d1 = the shorter distance from the source where the radiation intensity is I1.
I2 = the radiation intensity at distance d2 from the radiation source.
d2 = the longer distance from the source where the radiation intensity is I2.

I1 I2
source* ------------>|----------> |
------------>| |
d1 d2




The Attempt at a Solution



my issue is that it seems we are being asked to convert miliGrays to becquerels and I am not sure how that's done, they seem to be a measure of different things from what i was taught so surely a conversion will be imperfect?

from looking around on the internet, it seems possible but via conversion through several intermediatry units. is that how this is meant to be achieved or is there a simpler method?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
*shameless bump*

this 1 has stumped me a little sorry.
 
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