1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Uranium Dating

  1. Jan 4, 2015 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    The isostopc abundances of a sample is U-235 and U-238 are 0.72 and 99.27 respectively; what is the age of the sample? (assume isotope abundance was equal when sample was formed)

    2. Relevant equations
    [itex]\lambda=\frac{ln2}{ t_{\frac{1}{2}}}[/itex]

    3. The attempt at a solution
    for U-238 [itex]N_{238}(T)=N_{238}(t)e^{\lambda _{238}t}[/itex]
    U-235 [itex]N_{235}(T)=N_{235}(t)e^{\lambda _{235}t}[/itex]
    T is time at present and t is time of sample formation.

    diving the two equations gives
    [itex] \frac{N_{238}(T)}{N_{235}(T)}=\frac{N_{238}(t)}{N_{235}(t)}e^{(\lambda _{238}- \lambda _{235})t}[/itex]

    From the assumption, one can say [itex]\frac{N_{238}(t)}{N_{235}(t)}=1[/itex]
    It's here where i'm not sure; do i just say that [itex]\frac{N_{238}(T)}{N_{235}(T)}=\frac{99.27}{0.72}[/itex] and solve for t or am I missing something? Thanks

    EDIT: Sorry, I can't get my latex to work, I can't seem to fix it
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2015
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 4, 2015 #2

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    I fixed the two broken equations, but the first one looks odd.
    Yes, just do that and solve for t.
     
  4. Jan 4, 2015 #3
    Thanks for that, I fixed the first equation.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Uranium Dating
  1. Uranium and Springs (Replies: 1)

  2. Radioactive dating (Replies: 1)

  3. Carbon dating (Replies: 4)

  4. Radiocarbon Dating (Replies: 5)

  5. Radiocarbon dating (Replies: 3)

Loading...