Which Materials Are Most Effective at Blocking Beta Particles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter balertriton
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Cardboard is considered the least effective material for blocking beta particles, while lead is identified as the most effective. Copper and aluminum can also block beta particles, but aluminum's ability to stop them is limited, as it can only penetrate a few millimeters. The effectiveness of shielding materials is largely determined by their electron density, with higher densities providing better protection. Although thicker cardboard can eventually stop beta particles, it would require significantly more material compared to lead for the same level of shielding.
balertriton
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Here is my question from lab:

In an experiment, you will use cardboard, copper foil, aluminum plate and lead sheet to block β particles. If you had equal thicknesses of each substance, which would be most effective blocker? Which would be the least effective blocker?


I think that the cardboard would be the least effiective and the lead the most effictive. I believe that both copper and aluminum will stop the Beta particles, however my book says "beta particles can penetrate a few mm of aluminum"... does that mean alumimum can stop them too? Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They all stop beta particles to a certain extent but some materials are better at stopping them than others. If you had thick enough cardboard you could stop them completely, but it would be a lot thicker than the amount of lead you'd have to use for the same effect.
 
Ionizing radiation, as the name implies, interacts predominantly with the electrons in the atoms of the material through which it passes. The most effective shielding materials are those with the highest electron densities. Some amount of energy is lost through interaction with the nuclei (e.g. brehmsstrahlung radiation).
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top