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.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top