Radioactive Decay: Finding the Half-Life of K-40 in KCL

AI Thread Summary
A 2.71g sample of KCL shows a radioactive decay rate of 4490 Bq, attributed to the isotope K-40, which makes up 1.17% of potassium. The number of K-40 atoms in the sample is calculated to be approximately 2.560 x 10^20. The decay constant is determined using the formula [lambda] = decays per second / number of atoms, leading to a half-life calculation of 1.25 billion years. A caution is noted regarding the method's rigor, as it may not apply to isotopes with much shorter half-lives. The error in the initial calculations was identified as a failure to convert seconds to years.
JingXionG
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
A 2.71g sample of KCL is found to be radioactive, and it is decaying at a constant rate of 4490 Bq. The decays are traced to the ekement potassium and in particular to the isotope K(proton number 40), which constitutes 1.17% of normal potassium. find the half-life of this nuclide( Take molar mass of KCL = 74.555g)

Ans provided is 1.25 x 10^9 years. I can't seem to even come close to that value.

I found the number of K-40 in the sample which is 2.560 x 10^20. From there, using A= constant x number of particles of K-40 and rate of decay = -dN/dt, I can't seem to get that ans
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you're on the right track here. Your number for the number of 40K atoms is very close to what I got.

My next step was to find the decay constant, [lambda]. If the rate of decay is constant, then

[lambda] = decays per second / number of atoms

4490 Bq = 4490 decays per second. Once you have [lambda], you can use

T1/2 = ln(2) / [lambda] to get your half-life in seconds. I get 3.95 x 10 16 seconds, which is equivalent to 1.25 Billion years.

I should add a word of caution that this is *not* a completely rigorous method. You can't use it for something with a half-life of, say, 15 seconds. However, since the problem states the decay rate is constant and you can see that the decays/second are << than the number of atoms in the sample (16 orders of magnitude in this case), it should get an accurate answer.
 
argh

i know where i went wrong, forgot to convert the seconds to years!
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top