Understanding Branching Fraction: Ra-226 Example

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter leoneul
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fraction
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of branching fraction, specifically using the decay of Ra-226 as an example. Participants explore the interpretation of branching fractions in the context of radioactive decay, including calculations related to the expected number of decays through different channels over time.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the decay of Ra-226, noting the branching fractions for alpha decay channels to Rn-222 and attempts to calculate the expected number of decays for each channel after one half-life.
  • Another participant corrects a mathematical error in the calculation provided by the first participant, indicating the correct number of particles emitted through the second channel.
  • There is a discussion about the terminology used for branching ratios, with some participants noting that it can be confusing as it is sometimes referred to as “probability.”
  • One participant clarifies that the branching ratio reflects the probabilities for decay channels, emphasizing that for a single nucleus, the probability of decaying through a specific channel is represented by the branching fraction.
  • Another participant suggests a clearer way to express the relationship between the number of decays through a channel and total decays, while acknowledging that the initial interpretation was correct.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the conceptual understanding of branching fractions and their relation to decay probabilities, but there are minor disagreements regarding the mathematical calculations and terminology used.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express confusion over the terminology of branching ratios as "probabilities," which may affect their understanding. Additionally, there are indications that the calculations depend on the assumption of waiting an infinitely long time for decay events to be fully realized.

leoneul
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I’ve had huge difficulty understanding/interpreting the concept of branching fraction. So correct me if I’m wrong please:
Let’s take the decay of Ra-226 with half-life of 1602 years as an example. It decays through alpha 1 chanel to the excited state of Rn-222 with E=0,187 Mev ( branching fraction 5,4%) and through alpha 2 decay chanel to the ground state of Rn-222 ( Branching fraction 94,6%).

Now my understanding/interpretation :
If we have for example 10^6 Ra-226 nuclides at t=0 , then after 1602 years have passed , 0.054 * ( 10^6 / 2 )=27000 of alpha1 particles and (10^6/2)- 27000=527000 alpah 2 particles will have emitted.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello leoneul, :welcome:

Idea's good, math is not : (10^6/2)- 27000=473000 :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: leoneul
BvU said:
Hello leoneul, :welcome:

Idea's good, math is not : (10^6/2)- 27000=473000 :wink:
hehe thanks a lot! This simple concept has been causing so much trouble bcs some sources refers to the branching ratio as “ probability” which confused me
 
For anyone atom the branching ratio reflects the probabilities for the channels. Don't overthink!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: leoneul
mathman said:
For anyone atom the branching ratio reflects the probabilities for the channels. Don't overthink!
So for my example the probability that a certain SINGLE Ra-226 nucleus decays through alpha 1 channel is 5.4% but if we have an ENSEMBLE of Ra-226, then 5.4 % will decay through chanel 1. Correct?
 
Again, ideas correct. This time the wording could be a bit sharper by expressing it as a ratio $${\alpha_1\ {\rm decays} \over {\rm total \ decays}} \times 100 \;\%$$ however, litterally taken what you write is correct (but you have to wait infinitely long ...)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: leoneul
BvU said:
Again, ideas correct. This time the wording could be a bit sharper by expressing it as a ratio $${\alpha_1\ {\rm decays} \over {\rm total \ decays}} \times 100 \;\%$$ however, litterally taken what you write is correct (but you have to wait infinitely long ...)
Understood. Thank you very much!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
13K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K