Radioactive decay equilibrium when decay constants are equal

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on deriving the activity of radionuclide B in a decay chain A → B → C when the decay constants (λ_A and λ_B) are equal. The user struggles with the calculus involved in changing the derivation for the number of N under this condition. The solution involves recognizing that when λ_A = λ_B, one must approach the problem differently, either by solving the differential equation directly or by using limits and Taylor expansion to simplify the general case for unequal decay constants.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of radioactive decay and decay constants
  • Familiarity with differential equations
  • Basic calculus skills, particularly in derivatives and limits
  • Knowledge of Taylor series expansion
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of activity in radioactive decay chains
  • Learn about solving differential equations in the context of decay processes
  • Explore Taylor series and their applications in limits
  • Review calculus techniques for handling equal parameters in differential equations
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in nuclear physics, chemists working with radioactive materials, and anyone interested in the mathematical modeling of decay processes.

siifuthun
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
I need a refresher on calculus need to derive this equation, the question is:

A --> B --> C
and where decay constants:
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/4403/aki2.jpg
Derive an expression for the activity of B as a function of time.

So what I'm having trouble with is changing the derivation for the number of N when lambda_A = lambda_B so that I derive the activity of B.
Normally we would have:
http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/3501/ajh6.jpg
But because of the condition, we have to go about it differently. So setting the decay constants equal to each other:
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/192/asa5.jpg

And this is where I get a little stumped trying to change the derivation. When lambda_A doesn't equal lambda_B, the derivation ends up with:
http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/1602/akk1.jpg

The problem I'm having is that I'm not sure what has to be done differently in the original derivation to solve for activity, my calculus skills are a little rusty so if anyone has any suggestions or advice, it's greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
dN_B\,=\,\lambda_A\,(N^0_A\,e^{-\lambda_At}\,-\,N_B)\,dt

would lead one to

\frac{dN_B}{(N^0_A\,e^{-\lambda_At}\,-\,N_B)}\,=\,\lambda_A\,dt

which seems problematic.

But the expression on the left can be written

\frac{e^{\lambda_At}dN_B}{(N^0_A\,-\,e^{\lambda_At}N_B)}\,=\,\lambda_A\,dt


On the other hand, one does not find two radionuclides in a successive decay scheme having equal decay constants.
 
There's two approaches to figuring this out (the easy way and the harder way).

The harder way is to look for solutions to the differential equation you've finally arrived at.

The easy way is to find the limit of the solution given for the general case, as \lambda _B \rightarrow \lambda _A

Hint: Write \lambda _B = \lambda _A + \delta and find the limit of the first term of the general result (the one for unequal lambdas) as \delta \rightarrow 0. Use the Taylor expansion for the small exponential, and the limit pops out quite happily.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K