Radioactive Decay and Linear Graphing

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the process of determining the half-life of the radioactive isotope Iodine-131 using provided data on time and activity. The participant initially struggled with the correct formulation of the decay equation but later confirmed that the linear relationship can be derived using the natural logarithm of activity. They calculated a half-life of approximately 7.7 days, which aligns closely with the accepted value of just over 8 days. Clarification was sought on the algebraic manipulation of the decay equation, leading to a consensus that the correct form is A = Ao * e^(-λt). The conversation concluded with acknowledgment of a potential typo in the original worksheet regarding the decay equation.
nmacholl
Messages
26
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


This particular exercise has no "problem statement" but I'll explain it in detail using all the information provided to me.

The class was presented with a table of data containing values for time (in days) and activity (in cts/sec) for a radioactive isotope Iodine-131. We are to create a Linear graph using the data and fine Iodine-131's half life.

Here's the data, Time in days first - then the activity in cts/sec.
05 | 6523
10 | 4191
15 | 2736
20 | 1722
25 | 1114
30 | 0722
35 | 0507
40 | 0315

Homework Equations


Here are the equations given to us on the table.
A = Ao^{-\lambda t}
\lambda=(ln2)/T_{1/2}

Ao=10,000 cts/sec

The Attempt at a Solution


I've fiddled with the equation and wasn't getting anywhere near a y=mx+b solution so I decided to look up first order exponential decay on the web which landed me this equation.

ln(A) = -\lambda*t + ln(Ao)

So I made a separate table using the natural log of the Activity data and graphed it which comes out linear with an R2=1, the best fit is: f(x)=-0.09x+9.2

I used the slope to determine T1/2 or half life of the sample. I calculated a value of 7.7 days - the accepted value is barely over 8 days. I believe that the equation I found for first order exponential decay is in fact correct for this case but I have no idea how to go from A = Ao^{-\lambda t} to ln(A) = -\lambda*t + ln(Ao) algebraically.

In essence my question is: Is the ln(A) = -\lambda*t + ln(Ao) correct for this particular case of atomic decay and how do I get to this equation from the equation given.

Thanks alot!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think the equations are equivalent.

Recall that Bx = (elnB)x = exlnB

When you take the ln of both sides of A = Ao-λt

keeping in mind that B above is your Ao

Then you get lnA = -λ*t + lnAo
 
LowlyPion said:
I think the equations are equivalent.

Recall that Bx = (elnB)x = exlnB

When you take the ln of both sides of A = Ao-λt

keeping in mind that B above is your Ao

Then you get lnA = -λ*t + lnAo

Thanks a lot but I have a little problem.
Okay so if:
A = Aox // x = -λ*t
A = ex*ln(Ao)

then

ln(A) = x*ln(Ao)
ln(A) = -λ*t*ln(Ao)

Why is my version -λ*t*ln(Ao) as opposed to the correct version -λ*t+ln(Ao)? Why is it "+ln(Ao)"
 
nmacholl said:
Thanks a lot but I have a little problem.
Okay so if:
A = Aox // x = -λ*t
A = ex*ln(Ao)

then

ln(A) = x*ln(Ao)
ln(A) = -λ*t*ln(Ao)

Why is my version -λ*t*ln(Ao) as opposed to the correct version -λ*t+ln(Ao)? Why is it "+ln(Ao)"


This step is incorrect. Exponents add, not multiply.
 
LowlyPion said:
This step is incorrect. Exponents add, not multiply.

I'm a little confused, which step is incorrect?

A power raised to a power is multiplication, which is how you get A = ex*ln(Ao) no?

Since ln() is the inverse of e it shouldn't change the exponent of e correct? ln(A) = x*ln(Ao)
 
nmacholl said:
I'm a little confused, which step is incorrect?

A power raised to a power is multiplication, which is how you get A = ex*ln(Ao) no?

Since ln() is the inverse of e it shouldn't change the exponent of e correct? ln(A) = x*ln(Ao)

I think you should familiarize yourself with ln arithmetic.

eln(x) = x

ln(ex) = x

ln(ea*b) = a + b
 
LowlyPion said:
I think you should familiarize yourself with ln arithmetic.

eln(x) = x

ln(ex) = x

ln(ea*b) = a + b

If I substitute numbers in for a and b using my calculator I don't get a true statement.
a = 2
b = 5

ln(e^(a*b)) = a + b
ln(e^(10)) = 7
10 = 7

What am I doing wrong? :(
 
nmacholl said:
If I substitute numbers in for a and b using my calculator I don't get a true statement.
a = 2
b = 5

ln(e^(a*b)) = a + b
ln(e^(10)) = 7
10 = 7

What am I doing wrong? :(

Don't despair. Maybe I'm not remembering my ln math.

Sorry if I confused you at all. I'll have to look it up.
 
OK. I don't know what I was thinking, because of course it's equal to the product.

I think however that your original equation is

A = Ao*e-λt

Taking the ln of both sides:

ln(A) =ln(Ao) -λt

That makes sense. My fault. I should have recognized it immediately.
 
  • #10
LowlyPion said:
OK. I don't know what I was thinking, because of course it's equal to the product.

I think however that your original equation is

A = Ao*e-λt

Taking the ln of both sides:

ln(A) =ln(Ao) -λt

That makes sense. My fault. I should have recognized it immediately.

That certainly makes more sense than before! The worksheet must have a typo on the equation, I double checked and the handout and the -λt is the exponent of Ao and Euler's number is nowhere to be found.

Thanks alot.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top