Radioactive decay of granite -> How many years does it take?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the time required for a 1 kg chunk of granite to increase in temperature by 400°C due to radioactive decay. The specific heat capacity of granite is 800 J/kg°C, and the average energy release from radioactive decay is 0.03 J/kg per year. Using the equation Q=mcΔT, the total energy required is determined to be 320 kJ. Consequently, it takes approximately 10,666,666.67 years for the granite to reach the desired temperature increase.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the specific heat capacity concept
  • Familiarity with the equation Q=mcΔT
  • Basic knowledge of radioactive decay and energy release
  • Ability to perform unit conversions and calculations
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of radioactive decay in geological processes
  • Learn about the thermal properties of different rock types
  • Explore the concept of heat transfer in thermally insulated systems
  • Study the significance of significant figures in scientific calculations
USEFUL FOR

Students in geology or physics, educators teaching thermodynamics, and anyone interested in the thermal properties of rocks and radioactive decay processes.

Voltman123
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Radioactive decay of granite ---> How many years does it take?

Homework Statement


Radioactive decay of granite and other rocks in the Earth's interior provides sufficient energy to keep the interior molten, to heat lava and to provide warmth to hot springs. This is due to the average release of about 0.03J per kilogram of granite each year. How many years are required for a "chunk" of thermally insulated granite to increase in temperature by 400°C. The specific heat capacity of granite is 800J/Kg°C.



Homework Equations


It looks like we've been given the change in temperature and the specific heat capacity for granite so it is likely that we will need to be using the equation:
Q=mcΔT



The Attempt at a Solution



Q=m(800)(400)
Not sure where to get the mass or value for Q though. So far, we have two unknowns.

Any help would be appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Assume the chunk of granite has a mass of 1 kg.

Q is given in the problem statement (re-read it very carefully).
 
SteamKing said:
Assume the chunk of granite has a mass of 1 kg.

Q is given in the problem statement (re-read it very carefully).

Q=mcΔT
0.03 =m(800)(400)

Are we trying to work out the mass here?
If so, after finding out the mass, how does this help us in enabling us to find the number years required for a chunk of thermally insulated granite to increase in temperature by 400°C?

Any help would be appreciated!
 
Hello! Assume the mass = 1 kg.
 
SteamKing said:
Hello! Assume the mass = 1 kg.

But then we have all numbers?
I still don't get how I'm supposed to find the number of years using all this information. :(
 
SteamKing said:
Hello! Assume the mass = 1 kg.

Also, when I do assume mass=1kg,
Q=mcΔT = 1(800)(400)= 320 000 joules


(320 000 joules)/(0.03 J/kg per year)
=10 666 666.67kg per year.

Am I on the right track.

How do I get rid of the Kg sign?

By dividing it by something in kg? But how?
 
If m = 1 kg, then the Q necessary to raise the temperature 400 C is 800 J /kg-C * 400 C = 320 kJ.

Alternatively, one could say that the amount of heat necessary to raise the temperature of an insulated piece of granite is 320 kJ/kg. Now, if the heat generated by radioactivity is 0.03 J/kg/year, how many years will it take to generate 320 kJ?
 
SteamKing said:
If m = 1 kg, then the Q necessary to raise the temperature 400 C is 800 J /kg-C * 400 C = 320 kJ.

Alternatively, one could say that the amount of heat necessary to raise the temperature of an insulated piece of granite is 320 kJ/kg. Now, if the heat generated by radioactivity is 0.03 J/kg/year, how many years will it take to generate 320 kJ?

10 666 666.67 years?
 
As (320 kJ/kg)/(0.00004 kJ/kg/year)
=10 666 666.67 years?
 
  • #10
Please help me someone. I don't understand. Is this right or wrong?
 
  • #11
Your method looks fine, and the result has the right value. Watch the significant figures though; use scientific notation.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K