What is the Half Value Thickness for Lead at 0.4 MeV and 1.59 cm^-1?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the half value thickness (X(1/2)) for lead at an energy of 0.4 MeV and a linear absorption coefficient (u) of 1.59 cm^-1. Participants clarify that 0.4 MeV is an energy value, not intensity, and emphasize the importance of using the correct units for the absorption coefficient. The correct formula for half value thickness is established as X(1/2) = ln(0.5) / (-u), leading to a final calculation of 0.436 cm. Misunderstandings regarding the conversion of units and the notation used in the equations are addressed. The conversation concludes with a successful resolution of the calculation.
foxandthehen
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
1.
Determine the half value thickness, X(1/2) for lead where;
I = 0.4 MeV
u = 1.59cm^-1

2.
using;
I = Io e^-ux3.
ln(I/Io) = ln(e) -ux
ln(2) / -1.59x10^-2 = X(1/2)

=> X(1/2) = -1.7523m
Is that right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Firstly I=0,4MeV is an energy not an intensity.
Your 'u' seems to already be a half thickness.
Are you sure of the units of \mu, it's normally a bulk absorption ie cm2/g
 
mgb_phys said:
Firstly I=0,4MeV is an energy not an intensity.
Your 'u' seems to already be a half thickness.
Are you sure of the units of \mu, it's normally a bulk absorption ie cm2/g

Hi, thanks for your answers!

The mU I have stated is the linear absorption coefficient and therefore rated in the units of "per cm" and your right that that's energy, not intensity, but as you would need to do the same things to both the first (I) and the second value (Io) to convert them to intensity (and its one divided by the other), it will always come out as 2 for (I/Io) in order to get the half value thickness, therefore you can make 'I' any value and any units and the answer will be the same, its just the linear absorption coefficient that's important... right? Or perhaps I am missing the point?
 
You can't say I=0.4mev - just checking you weren't confused with something else.
Your method is almost correct

You want the intensity to reduce to 0.5, so I=0.5 if Io=1
so so ln(I/Io) = ln(0.5) = -ux

There's no need to convert into m.
Then you can check your answer by putting it back into the equation and checking you get
0.5 = e ^ -1.59 x
 
ahhh, I see! I was on the whole, the symbol with the 'o' after it is normally lower, where as for this one its higher as it decreases over distance! Must have been a long day as I totally missed that one! Plus, as its 'per cm' I was going the wrong way on converting it to m!

So we have;
X(1/2) = ln(0.5) / (-1.59) = 0.436cm

Thank you!
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top