Why does silver have lower absorption than zirconium at 35 keV?

Myrddin
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
so just about finishing a report on x ray abosprtion on different materials, generally the linear attneuation coefficent increases with atominc number Z. However silver(47) had a lower attenuation coefficent then zirconium(40) despite having the significantly higher value of Z.

With some reading found that the absorption edges ;where there is a rapid increase in absorption from photon matching the binding of a shell, depends on the energy of the x ray your using. So we thought this must explain our result with silver. Looking at the K shell :

Zirconium has Kedge absortpion at 18KeV
Silver has kedge absorption 25 KeV

Our supply voltage was 35Kv---> 35KeV , so why does zircmonium have more absortion?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The answer lies in the fact that (K) edges of zirconium and silver have different shapes. The K edge of silver has a very sharp rise at 25 keV, but then a gradual decrease as energy increases. So even though the absorption was lower for silver than for zirconium at 25 keV, it still had more absorption at 35 keV due to its gradual decrease in absorption. Thus, the higher atomic number of silver did not necessarily lead to it having a higher linear attenuation coefficient than zirconium.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top