Solving for Thickness of Lead to Reduce Count Rate to 50

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves calculating the thickness of lead required to reduce the count rate of gamma radiation from a source. The initial count rate is 1000 counts per minute, which decreases to 100 counts per minute with 1.0 cm of lead, and the goal is to determine the additional thickness needed to further reduce the count rate to 50 counts per minute.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to use an exponential attenuation formula to find the attenuation coefficient and subsequently the thickness required for the desired count rate. Some participants question the interpretation of the results and clarify the distinction between total thickness and additional thickness needed.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing examination of the calculations and interpretations related to the thickness of lead required. Some participants have pointed out the need to focus on the additional thickness rather than the total thickness, suggesting a productive direction for the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the implications of the problem's wording regarding "additional thickness" and are considering the results of previous calculations in light of this clarification.

gungo
Messages
27
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


The count-rate from a gamma source is measured to be 1000 counts per minute. When 1.0 cm of lead is placed between the source and the detector, the count rate is reduced to 100 counts per minute. What additional thickness of lead would have reduced the count-rate to 50 counts per minute?

Homework Equations


C= Cinital e^-μx

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm not really sure how to approach the question I tried using the first equation to find the attenuation coeffecient by subbing in 100= 1000 e^-μ(0.01) and getting 230.26. And then I used that to find x by doing 50= 1000e^-230.26x and I got 13 mm, but the answer is 3 mm. Not sure where I'm going wrong or if I am even using the right formula...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your answer 13 mm should be correct
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gungo
Your 13mm is correct, but it asks "what additional thickness...". It took 10 mm to reduce 1000 to 100.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gungo
phyzguy said:
Your 13mm is correct, but it asks "what additional thickness...". It took 10 mm to reduce 1000 to 100.
thank you!
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K