January 12, 2025, 01:30:20 PM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: aging of rocks  (Read 3833 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline student8607

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 227
  • Mole Snacks: +2/-3
aging of rocks
« on: January 30, 2009, 08:53:59 PM »
One way to determine the age of a rock is to measure the extent to which the 87Rb in the rock has decayed to 87Sr (a first order process.)

k = 1.42 x 10-11 year-1

What fraction of the original 87Rb would still remain in the rock after 1.0 x 1010 years?


Can I just rearrange this equation:
ln(Rt) = ln(Ro) - kt . where Rt is amount at any time & Ro is original amount?
ln(Rt)/ln(Ro) = -kt
?
this way I get 14%

Or do I need to use 1/2 life?

Offline Astrokel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Mole Snacks: +65/-10
  • Gender: Male
Re: aging of rocks
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2009, 02:25:57 AM »
You are right half-life is not needed and the equation you have done is good enough. Only one mistake is that you take natural log.

Rt = Roe-kt
Rt/Ro = e-kt
.
No matters what results are waiting for us, it's nothing but the DESTINY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Offline student8607

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 227
  • Mole Snacks: +2/-3
Re: aging of rocks
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2009, 11:34:37 AM »
You are right half-life is not needed and the equation you have done is good enough. Only one mistake is that you take natural log.

Rt = Roe-kt
Rt/Ro = e-kt
.
Oh ok. My mistake. I just assumed the ln's would cancel. But I see you need to take anti-ln.

So I have 88%.

Would that be adequate to the question: "what fraction?": 88/100?

Offline Astrokel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Mole Snacks: +65/-10
  • Gender: Male
Re: aging of rocks
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2009, 11:46:30 AM »
0.88 would be better.
No matters what results are waiting for us, it's nothing but the DESTINY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sponsored Links