Rutherford alpha particle scattering

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on a homework problem involving the scattering of alpha particles by gold foil, specifically calculating the number of particles detected at various angles and the effect of doubling their kinetic energy. For part a), the user attempts to apply the equation N = k/[sin(theta/2)^4] to find the number of scattered particles at angles of 40, 60, 80, and 100 degrees, but seeks clarification on the methodology. Responses suggest that while the user is on the right track, they may need additional equations related to kinetic energy for part b). A reference to HyperPhysics is provided for further guidance on the topic. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the equations governing the scattering process.
Tyst
Messages
26
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A parallel beam of alpha particles with fixed kinetic energy is normally incident on a piece of gold foil.
a) if 100 alpha particles per minute are detected at 20 degrees, how many will be counted at 40, 60, 80 and 100 degrees?
b) If the kinetic energy of the incident alpha partilces is doubled, how many scattered alpha particles will be observed at 20 degrees.
The density of the gold foil is given to be 19.3 g/cm^3

2. Homework Equations / Attempt at solution

N = k/[sin(theta/2)^4] ... My question is in relation to the relevant equations. I attempted to use this equation (substituting values given for scattering at 20 degrees to find 'k') for part a), though i am fairly sure there is more to it than this, could someone please point me in the right direction with regard to other equations relevant to this problem? I'm afraid i am lacking a text and have had no luck with google!

Thank you for your time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
a.) 40 - 50
60 - 25
80 - 10
100 - 5

b.) 2x 200 2He4
 
Thank you for the response .ultimate, i was wondering if you could tell me how you came to get those answers? Perhaps you could tell me what equations were used, or how you came to that conclusion?

Thank you
 
Tyst said:
Thank you for the response .ultimate, i was wondering if you could tell me how you came to get those answers? Perhaps you could tell me what equations were used, or how you came to that conclusion?

Thank you

I don't think he used 'equations'. He made them up. It sounds like you are doing exactly the right thing for part a). Do b) in more or less the same way - but now you'll need to know the dependence of k on the kinetic energy. Here's a reference:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rutsca.html
 
Thanks Dick :cool:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
7K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K