Stopping Radiation - Physics EEI (Kyle Jeffrey)

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT
Table of Contents
Section
Page #
Aim
Variables
Theoretical Perspective
4-5
Hypothesis
Apparatus
Procedure
8-9
Results
10-18
Discussion
19-21
Conclusion
22
Appendices
23-27
Global Aim:
To investigate the characteristics of different radiation types to

determine the level of their effects.
Aim:
1. To see whether the change in distance from a radioactive source will affect
the surrounding radiation absorbed from that distance and whether this will
differ with different forms of radiation.
2. To investigate and understand what materials will reduce and/or stop
radiation in order to determine if different forms of radiation have a
different penetrating power.
3. To determine if environmental factors, such as temperature, can affect the
level of radiation given from a source.
Variables:
Independent:
Distance (cm): Increments in figure 4
Material: See figure 5
Temperature (c): Values in figure 6
Radiation Type: Alpha (Po-210), Beta (Sr-90), Gamma (Co-60)
Dependent:
Radiation Count (rad/min.)
The set distances used (dependent on what radiation is being tested)
Controlled:
Equipment Used
Radioactive Source: Polonium-210 (alpha), Strontium-90 (beta),

Cobalt-60 (gamma)
Position of Radioactive Materials
The material samples tested on remained the same throughout the

experiment.
Other:
Wind all doors were closed to reduce its presence (preliminary

testing showed a significant spike of about 20 rads in the background
radiation level whilst doors were open on the day that it was noticed
it was rather windy This theory of wind being a contributing factor
was further validated several days later with similar conditions for
reasons unknown.)
Room Temperature (winter): Minimal Fluctuations
Size - The material samples tested were chosen to minimise

differences of thickness and were cut as close as possible to the same
area size the size of the Geiger counter (rectangle).
Theoretical Perspective:
Radioactivity is the potential for an element or compound to emit energy, as
particles or waves, from the atomic nuclei of a generally unstable substance into
the surrounding space - in the form of either alpha particle, beta particle and high
energy electromagenic gamma radiation - before being absorbed by another
substance (Dictionary.com, 2014). It was originally discovered by Anoine Henri
Becquerel in 1896 whilst using uranium-potassium sulfate crystals to try and
replecate the results of Wilhelm Conrad Rntgens observation of fluoresence coming from the opaque black paper of a Hittof-Crookes tube noted in the
preceding year, 1895 (UCDAVIS - CHEMWiki Hyperlibrary, n.d.). His findings were
the first conclusive evidence of another, previoiusly unknown, interacting
occurance in the world, later termed radioactivity by Marie Curie (UCDAVIS CHEMWiki Hyperlibrary, n.d.). He successfully, yet accidentally, demonstrated that
the salts could continually fluoresce without the need of an energy source and
thus the flouresence could not be due to rays, such as x rays or UV rays (Guide to
the Nuclear Wallchart, 2000). Over the following decades to come, science has
uncovered many of the elusive qualities of such radiation.
Although the three forms of radiation (alpha, beta, gamma) all radiate from the
nucleus of an atom, each holds specifically different characteristcs; with varying
affects on its surroundings.
Alpha radiation, the nuclei of a helium atom and the biggest form of radiation, has
a travelling speed of up to 5% of the speed of light with an approximate speed of
around 15 x106 m/s and a net charge of +2 (as shown in diagram 2) due to the
loss of two electrons of a helium atom (whilst in nuclei form) (Wilkinson, 1993).
Due to this intense attractive force which has a pull that is equal to that of the
second ionisation energy level, alpha particle radiation will steal the electrons
from nearby atoms - when the force required to separate that surrounding atom
from its electrons is less than the force of attraction from the alpha particle causing surrounding gases to ionise (Wilkinson, 1993). This creates a minute
electrical field as observed by Marie Curie in the 1900s (UCDAVIS - CHEMWiki
Hyperlibrary, n.d.). Due to this, and also because of its shier volume, alpha
particles have a pentrating distances of only a few centimeters in air with a
signifcantly high collisions-per-second ratio. Alpha particles are produced when an
isotope emits the nucleus of a helium atom, the most basic stable element and a
noble gas, it undergoes a process called nuclear transmutation where the atomic
number decreases by 2, due to the loss of 2 protons, changing the isotope itself
(Harold D. Nathan, 1993). This often only occurs in much larger isotopes, where
an abundance of energy is available from the unstable atom. When Polonium-210
experiences this phenominom it transmutes into Lead-206 as seen in figure 1. This
is determined via a simple equation of decay.
On the other Figure 1 - The decay process before and after Po- hand,
Beta
radiation is the 210 emission of an electron (Nave, 2014). Electrons, being much
lighter than alpha particles, are fast moving with a minimum speed of 30% of the
speed of light, with some of the most energetic particles travelling to speeds of up
to and including 99% of the speed of light, with all else ranging in between
(Wilkinson, 1993). Obviously, as beta decay is the ejection of single elctrons, the
charge of this radiation is -1. These free electrons are far less ionising because of
their charge only having a force of attraction equal to the first ionisation level of
the radioactive substance. Due to thrice being smaller, travelling between 6 to 50
times faster and having half the charge of alpha particles; beta radiation has a
much lower influence and effect on their surroundings causing fewer collisions.
Because of this, beta particle radiation can travel approximately up to several
meters through air. The emittion of beta particles is not caused by releasing an
electron from the electron
shell orbiting the nuclei.
Instead, the electron is
actually ejected from the
nuclius of a radioactive
element
via
a
weak
interaction
(Harold
D.
Nathan, 1993). The beta
particle arises from the decay of a neutron to a proton (Harold D. Nathan, 1993).
This is another form of transmutation that occurs to create beta decay as shown in
figure 2. When Strontium-90 experiences this phenominom it transmutes into
Yttrium-90.
Figure 2
The finally
radiation,
radiation, is
different the
based
alpha and
Gamma
the emission
form of
gamma
quite
both particle
radiation,
beta.
radiation is
of high-
energy elctromagnetic rays from the nucleus of an atom (Wilkinson, 1993). In

many cases, the point of emission is the only difference between x-rays and
gamma radiation (where x-rays are emitted from the electron orbital of an atom).
As they are energy, they travel approximately at the speed of light. In addition,
they have no net charge, as discovered by Pierre Curie whilst applying an
electrical field to each type of radiation, see figure 3 (Wilkinson, 1993). Gamma
radiation has a very low ionising power because of having no charge. Overall,
gamma radiation is very penetrating, only being absorbed by very dense metals.
Figure 3
Radiation can be measured by a number of devices, however the Geiger Muller
counter is the most commonly used. A Geiger Muller counter, also refered to as a
Geiger counter for short, is a particle gauge designed to identify ionisation. Due to
this, its ability to accurately read the level of gamma radiation is lacking. A
Gieger counter measures, or more accurately, counts the number of rads per
minute. A rad is a unit of absorbed radiation dose, where 1 rad = 0.01 Gy = 0.01
J/kg.
Hypothesis:
1. If the distances from a radioactive source is increased, then the possible
radiation absorbed (rads/minute) will decrease at an exponential (negative)
rate with the rate of decrease being dependent on the type of radiation
emitted as each exhibits different characteristics. Alpha particle radiation
will decrease rapidly with distance because the helium nuclei dissipates
away easily, being absorbed away into its surroundings after a few
centimetres. Beta particle radiation will decrease moderately and
exponentially (negatively) with distance because the free (radical) electron
is far more penetrating than alpha; with a maximum range of a few meters
in air. Gamma electromagnetic radiation will decrease at a much slower
rate because of its high energy properties travelling at great distances with
high penetration.
2. If different materials are placed in front of a radioactive source (at a
reasonable distance), then the possible radiation absorbed, from behind
that material, will decrease exponentially (negatively) as the material
becomes denser because the possibility of being absorbed by matter is
increased linearly to the number of atoms in an area (density). However, the
type of radiation emitted is also a key factor. Alpha particle radiation will
decrease almost instantaneously into the least dense substance due to the
high number or collisions. Beta particle radiation will decrease more
moderately, requiring the denser metals to be fully absorbed by, because the
more compact the area of mass will result in an increase in the number of
collisions - however the less dense materials will still affect the count
(rads/minute) of radiation.
3. If the temperature of a radioactive isotope is increased, then the radiation
count at a set distance will increase because of the increase in the energy
and excitement of that radiation resulting in the radiation being more
penetrating and travelling further. This is due to the increase of kinetic
energy.
Materials:
Chemicals:
Polonium - 210 (emits Alpha radiation)
Strontium - 90 (emits Beta radiation)
Cobalt - 60 (emits Gamma radiation)
Apparatus:
Geiger-Muller Counter
Stopwatch
Tape Measurer
Tongs
Whiteboard Marker
Infrared Thermometer (C)
2 Heating Pads (C)
Freezer (C)
Tested Materials (B):
Air (Nothing)
Tissue
Balsa Wood
Corflute
Glass
Perspex
Reflective Perspex
Aluminium Sheet
Copper Sheeting
Tin Sheet
Zinc Piece
Lead Piece
Method:
Distance
1. Gathered required equipment, chemicals and safety clothing (following
safety report attached to appendix).
2. The established distances were measured out, and then marked with pen, to
reduce the time changes between distances. Distances used were
dependent on what type of radiation was used see figure 4 for finalised
measurements.
3. Placed and turned on Geiger Muller Counter at the set distance - 1cm away
from where radioactive source was to be and waited for the 1 minute
initial background radiation mark (beep), recording down the reading (see
figure 9).
4. Step 3 was repeated twice more, creating an average.
5. Moved Geiger counter to the starting distance, started timer, placed the
Polonium isotope (alpha radiation) then waited a minute before recording
the count read on the screen. Timer was reset afterwards.
6. Repeated previous step twice more to obtain an average.
7. Repeated steps 5-6 however moving the Geiger counter to the next
distance.
8. Repeated step 7, following the distance list for that isotope in figure 4, until
the radiation levels decreased to that of backgrounds.
9. Repeated steps 5-8 for the remaining isotopes: Strontium (Beta), Cobalt
(Gamma).
10.Collected and combined all recorded data into a clear and organised table,
as shown in results.
Penetration/Materials
figure 9).
4. Started testing alpha radiation in air first.
5. Started timer, placed the Polonium isotope (alpha radiation) 1 cm away from
Geiger counter and waited a minute before recording the count read on the
screen. Timer was reset afterwards.
7. Repeated steps 5-6 however replacing with the next material (following the
materials list found in figure 5).
8. Repeated steps 4-7 for the remaining isotopes: Strontium (Beta), Cobalt
(Gamma).
9. Collected and combined all recorded data into a clear and organised table,
Temperature
1. Prepared radioactive isotopes beforehand at different temperatures:
a. Cooled: Placed into a freezer for approximately 8 hours before
testing.
b. Room Temperature: Left isotopes unaltered before testing; remaining
in a stable environment for at least 8 hours before testing.
c. Heated: The isotope remained in a stable environment the day
leading up to testing. The heater pads were turned on a minimum of
3 hours before testing with the isotopes being placed in the centre of
the bottom pad 1 hour before testing, with another pad placed on top
of the isotope.
figure 9).
5. Started testing with the isotopes that remained at room temperature first
following all relevant and applicable specifications listed in step 1.
6. Set timer and focussed infrared thermometer onto the ring of the first
radioactive isotope (alpha), recording its temperature afterwards.
7. Started timer, placed the isotope 1 cm away from Geiger counter and
waited a minute before recording the count read on the screen. Timer was
reset afterwards.
9. Repeated steps 6-8 for the remaining two forms of radioactive elements
(Beta, Gamma).
10.Repeated steps 6-9 on the same 3 substances once they were chilled, as per
all relevant and applicable specifications listed in step 1.
11.Repeated steps 5-8 on the same 3 substances once they were heated, as per
all relevant and applicable specifications listed in step 1.
12.Collected and combined all recorded data into a clear and organised table,
Results - Raw:
Radiation vs. Distance (fig.4):
Radiation
Type
Alpha
Average
Distance
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
1582
961
753
1099
48
48
48
48
42
38
38
39
26
36
46
36
13300
14800
14200
14100
10
4465
4416
4691
4524
15
2184
2227
2360
2257
20
1148
1246
1140
1178
30
536
532
596
555
40
288
298
316
301
50
178
168
174
173
60
148
102
144
131
70
80
110
100
97
80
72
72
104
83
90
98
88
60
82
100
38
54
48
47
110
48
50
42
47
Beta
120
52
56
38
49
130
44
28
54
42
10
839
897
853
863
30
168
114
162
148
50
64
74
92
77
100
54
42
36
44
150
30
48
46
41
200
42
34
42
39
140
150
Gamma
250
300
Radiation vs. Material (fig.6):

Radiation
Type
Average
Material
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
Nothing
612
576
652
613
Tissue
48
44
36
43
Balsa Wood
58
24
44
42
Corflute
32
40
42
38
Nothing
26360*
30450
29930
30190
Tissue
27070
27710
26210
26997
Balsa Wood
20730
22990
20890
21537
Corflute
13870
15620
15980
15157
Glass
1050
1170
1106
1109
Perspex
1244
1224
1429
1299
Reflective Perspex
6334
6385
5812
6177
Glass
Alpha
Perspex
Reflective Perspex
Aluminium
Copper
Tin
Zinc
Lead
Beta
Radiation
Type
Gamma
Aluminium
23970
23270
22870
23370
Copper
12040
9004
10630
10558
Tin
4371
6785
4923
5360
Zinc
1220
1062
2412
1565
Lead
48
46
50
48
Material
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
Nothing
6816
7257
7761
7278
Tissue
6437
6611
6488
6512
Balsa Wood
6489
6375
6664
6509
Corflute
5408
5253
5012
5224
Glass
5630
5435
5557
5541
Perspex
6053
6068
4974
5699
Reflective Perspex
6816
6508
5705
6342
Aluminium
6222
5314
5134
5557
Copper
5045
4917
5285
5082
Tin
5608
5829
6160
5866
Zinc
5612
4923
5488
6341
Lead
4430
4255
4792
4492
Average
Radiation vs. Temperature (fig.5):

Radiation
Type
Alpha
Beta
Average
Temperature
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
-25
290
464
332
362
25
612
576
652
613
57
688
642
572
634
-25
34980
36870
27440*
35925
25
26360*
30450
29930
30190
Gamma
57.5
28260
27160
27070
27497
-25
8741
7360
8204
8102
25
6816
7257
7761
7278
58
7144
7864
7730
7579
Results - Processed:
Radiation vs. Distance:
Graph 1
Graph 2
Graph 3
Radiation vs. Materials:
Graph 4
Graph 5
Graph 6
Graph 7
Radiation vs. Temperature:
Graph 8
Graph 9
Graph 10
Graph 11
Discussion:
Analysis:
The first three graphs are visual representations of data for the decay of
three radiation types (alpha, beta and gamma) over distance. Each graphs
exhibits asymptomatic characteristics a trend that is expressed by a
hyperbola trend. This has been represented by the negative exponential
function on graphs one to three. This was not as accurate as graphing a
hyperbolic function, however certain limits were experienced whilst
creating graphical representations. This is highlighted with a R 2 value of
0.6682 on graph one and is emphasised with a similar result in graph three,
where R2 equals 0.6237. Conversely, the second graph has resulted with a
significantly higher R2 value of 0.838. This value demonstrates that the
exponential equation line, based on the data, will produce a reasonable and
accurate result for a high percentage of the time. Upon inspection of the
graph, the exponential line passes close to or through all the data points
greater than x=15. The graph also approaches the background radiation
count at 100cm and after reaching the average background radiation
level at 130cm, however no further data was collected to validate if x=130
is the threshold of the complete loss of radiation and/or energy into the
surrounding area. Therefore, the approximate limits to the exponential
equation formulated in graph two are 15 x 130. A possible reason for the
increase in accuracy of the exponential equation in graph 2, compared to
that in graph 1 and/or 3, is that the number of distances where the
radiation levels were recorded at, is much higher than the number of tested
distances in graph 1 and 3. In fact, the testing of beta decay vs. distance
has a total of 15 data points (15 distances where radiation levels were
recorded), whilst the number measurements taken for the effect of distance
on alpha decay was only 4 and with only 6 for gamma decay vs. distance.
This is a very plausible reason for the decrease in accuracy at formulating
an equation for the radiation count at a distance.
Alternatively, the data collected does confirm the Hypothesis 1 that alpha
particles will decrease rapidly with distances, beta particles will decrease
more moderately with distance and that gamma radiation will decrease at a
much slower (less inclined) pace than beta. The data expressed in graph 1
reveals that a radiation count drop of 1051 rads/min with an increase of
1cm. At 3cm and 4cm, only small differences occur as the radiation count
approaches that of the backgrounds. What this means is that alpha
particles can only travel very small portions through air. This is a rapid
decrease in the radiation count with the increase of distance, confirming
the original hypothesis. The data present in graph 2 display a moderate
decrease in the emission of beta particles. The first to data points, (14100,
5) and (4524, 10), share a common ratio - a characteristic of a geometric
progression - of 0.32085*; roughly a third difference. Between the x=10 an
x=60, this ratio changes to a rather constant ratio value of approximately
0.50*, breaking this trend when 60<x as the data approaches the
background radiation reading. This is definite evidence that confirms the
originally hypothesis for beta decay vs. distance as the key word
moderately is most commonly associated with halving and/or doubling a
value. Finally, graph three adequately justifies the original hypothesis made
between gamma radiation vs. distance. In the first data point, where x=10,
the radiation count is recorded as 863 rads/min. This is an unrealistic
figure, however an unrealistic result was always expected when measuring
gamma radiation. As a Geiger counter is a particle detector designed to
detect ionising radiation, the electromagnetic high energy gamma radiation
has a significantly lower sensitivity resulting in a miss reading. The first
data point is a good indication for the actual radiation level, ie higher than
863. When x=150, the radiation level is that of background radiation
however because this is a miss reading we know that the real distance at
which the radiation reaches a background level must be significantly
greater than 150cm. As this reading is already 20cm further than the
distance at which beta particles reach a background radiation level, the
hypothesis is justifiably correct through implications.
When comparing the data recorded in graphs 4-7, two different

relationships exist between the different types of radiation. Alpha radiation
again decreases at a rapid negative exponential rate. Whilst travelling 1cm
through air a count was recorded of 613 rads/min, instantaneously
dropping to 43 rads/min when tissue paper (the least dense and lightest
material) was placed before the Geiger counter. This demonstrates that
alpha particles are absorbed extremely easily into other material and/or
dissipated into the surrounding area. This is why testing was concluded
after corflute, as the count had already reach background and the other
materials were considered denser making testing them pointless. However,
for beta decay and gamma decay, linear relationships were far more
appropriate with both graph 5 and 6 decrease in count as the density of the
material was increased (with exceptions), forming a negative linear
function.
Focussing on graph 5 (beta decay vs. materials), it can be again be seen
that the increase in a materials density, decreases the count of radiation,
however at a more moderate and consistent rate. There are several
exceptions to this: glass, perspex and aluminium. When referring to figure
7 it can be seen that the widths of glass and perspex are very similar to
that of balsa wood and corflute where balsa wood and glass have a width
of around 1.685 mm, and corflute and perspex both have a width of 3.03
mm. This means that the anomalies within this trend were not caused by a
great increase in the width of the substance extremely decreasing the
count, and that some other unknown factor must be involved. The
aluminium anomaly I suspect is caused by a much simpler reason. As
mentioned before the width of the material could play an important part on
stopping radiation. The aluminium sheet had a massive increase of the
radiation penetrating the material count to 23370 rads/min, however it
does have a thinness of only 0.08 mm. This theory is further confirmed
when referring to the coppers count. Copper showed a heightened count
compared to the trend however not enough to consider an extreme

anomaly. Only 5360 rads/min were able to penetrate copper at a thickness
of 0.08 mm, and copper is 1 period down (from period 3 to 4) and 2 groups
to the right (from group 13 to 11) from aluminium, 16 places higher on the
periodic table, resulting in a higher density. Even with this increased
density, an increase in the counts penetrating through is observable,
justifying that the anomaly experienced in the jump of aluminiums count is
due to the width of the sheeting.
And finally, whilst focussing on graph 6, the data presents a negative linear
function, however with a very small inclination (only losing 1000 rads/min
between air and lead; and still far from the point of background radiation).
Compared to graph 5, there is a much smaller difference between the
maximum and minimum values recorded (ie no considerable anomalies).
The radiation count whilst travelling through air is 7278 rads/min. This is
the maximum value (for obvious reasons). The count whilst travelling
through lead is only 4495 rads/min. This is a difference of 2783 rads/min.
The combination of graphs 4-6 can be seen on graph 7. It is also worth
noting that in graphs 4-6, the attached R 2 values for their functions are also
quite low alpha R2=0.6361; beta R2=0.5056; gamma R2=0.3669.
Whilst viewing the data collected for radiation vs. temperature on graphs 811, an even more interesting trend is present. In graph 8, the radiation
emitted increases linearly (positively) as temperature is increased, however
there is a greater difference between the count of -25c and 25c than
between 25c and 57.5c which is expected to a degree, but the difference
does not seem consistent. That aside, the attached linear equation has an
R2 of 0.7803. This is a reasonable and appropriate level. In graph 9, the
opposite occurs with the radiation count decreasing however at a more
consistent rate. Due to this uniformity, the attached equation has a
resulting R2 of 0.9584. This means that if the equation was used to
determine the radiation count at a particular temperature the result would
be very accurate and realistic. In graph 10, the radiation count reaches its
minimum value at the median (25c) increasing at the outer data points.
This trend has been described by a 2nd order polynomial function where a
decrease or increase in temperature past 25c will result in an increase in
the count. This resulting quadratic formula has an R2 value of 1. This means
that using this equation will 100% accurately determine the radiation count
at a temperature.
The combination of all graphs 8-10 can be seen on graph 11. This
successfully proves that each type of radiation will react differently with
the change in temperature. However, this would need to be further
validated by extensive testings at a wider range of temperatures as only
three data points were used in this experiment.
Evaluation:
The final data obtained was very reliable because the preliminary testing was
adjusted to reduce error. For example, the Geiger counter used was replaced for a
newer model as the original Geiger counter provided inconsistent readings. In
addition, the position that the isotope was placed in whilst testing was changed
from label flat on the table facing down (fig. 8), to isotope rested on the rim.
This was changed as it was found that the new position directed and focussed the
radiation better towards the Geiger counter. As previously discussed the doors
remained closed after preliminary tests as it found to have an effect on the
background radiation levels.
The reasonableness and accuracy of the data obtained is further emphasised when
comparing to the secondary data source shown in figure 10 specifically the data
for Distances (with slight differences of experiment conducted). The primary data
collected was as follows:
Alpha (1 cm) 1099
Beta (1 cm) 30190
Gamma (1 cm) 7278
The secondary data collected was as follows:
Alpha (0 cm) 6067
Beta (0 cm) 28531
Gamma (0 cm) 8956
Whilst there is a significant difference between the two data points for alpha
radiation, it is still justifiable reasonable, because alpha radiation decreases
almost instantaneously with distance. The data for Beta and Gamma radiation are
clear examples of the similarities between two different data results. Based on
this, the data collected is of a reasonable standard as it replicates that findings of
another secondary experiment. An assumption is being made that if the starting
radiation levels are reasonable, all further data will be accurate and reasonable as
well.
All anomalies have been represented with an asterisk *. Three noted data points
have been considered as anomalies:
1. The first trial of beta travelling through air (experiment 2). It had a count of
26360, whilst the average of the last two trials equalled 30190 rads/min.
2. The third trial of beta radiation at -25c (experiment 3). It had a count of 27440,
whilst the average of the first two trials equalled 35925 rads/min.
3. The first trial of beta radiation at 25c (experiment 3). It had a count of 26360,
whilst the average of the last two trials equalled 30190 rads/min.
This trial data were excluded from the average of the results.
Conclusion:
This experiment was deemed very successful. It provided insight into the
behaviour and characteristics of radiation. The data recorded successfully proved
both hypothesis 1 and 2. Interestingly, the results from experiment 3 revealed a
new relationship then predicted in hypothesis 3. The findings show that alpha
radiation increases its penetrating power with the increase in temperature. Beta
radiation shows a relationship where the penetrating power has a negative linear
function with the increase of temperature. Finally, gamma radiation forms a
quadratic function with a minimum value at 25c increasing count with the
decrease or increase in temperature. However, if this experiment was to be
replicated I strongly recommend including more data points for the distance
experiment and temperature.
Appendix:
Material
Length
(mm)
Height
(mm)
Width (mm)
Atomic
Number
Geiger-Muller
Counter
144
76
N/A
N/A
Tissue
192
78
0.12
N/A
Balsa Wood
178
84
1.65
N/A
Corflute
204
102
3.03
N/A
Glass
151
100
1.72
N/A
Perspex
179
188
3.03
N/A
Reflective
Perspex
199
99
1.93
N/A
Aluminium
183
95
0.08
13
Copper
186
92
0.08
29
Tin
144
82
0.08
50
Zinc
183
83
0.42
30
Lead
182
84
1.33
82
Figure 7
Figure 8
Original method: Geiger counter was replaced (not working as expected);
radiation resting position was flipped to its side circular side.
Background Radiation Levels Figure 9:

36, 32, 40
32, 22, 34
34, 40, 36
Mean = 37.33 rads/min
Median = 34 rads/min
Secondary Data - Results Figure 10

Raw Data
Table 1 Experimental data for distance and barrier against count/minute
Exp1: Distance
Distance (mm)
Alph
a
Beta
Exp2: Barrier
Gam
ma
Number
Of
Alph
a
Bet
a
Gam
ma
Sheets
Background
Radiation
24
42
33
BG
35
21
33
resul
0()
0()
606
7
285
31
8956
717
6
797
5
2287
10
10
587
8
154
62
4309
66
739
7
2066
20
20
546
8
680
3
2320
23
709
6
1737
30
30
522
5
499
7
1441
22
707
0
1701
40
40
515
0
274
8
785
690
0
1663
50
50
490
7
215
0
756
662
1
1493
60
60
471
3
151
9
662
678
3
1246
70
70
429
5
118
7
605
579
9
1127
80
80
353
5
947
428
515
7
1028
90
90
337
0
786
291
535
5
797
10
100
100
308
0
631
266
10
505
5
711
15
110
110
485
213
11
511
5
577
120
120
463
165
12
487
5
527
130
130
380
114
13
488
7
388
140
140
320
118
14
468
3
398
150
150
257
107
15
465
277
3
200
160
131
91
16
470
1
268
250
170
99
87
17
442
5
199
300
180
48
77
18
486
9
156
350
190
35
70
19
486
3
133
400
200
21
53
20
426
9
98
500
210
10
56
21
459
9
91
220
50
22
426
9
82
230
41
23
456
9
54
240
37
24
457
1
250
28
25
449
7
300
21
26
437
7
400
27
431
7
28
485
5
29
390
9
30
364
5
31
351
9
32
570
3
33
490
9
34
414
9
35
389
1
36
333
3
37
341
7
38
359
1
39
369
9
40
365
1
Only one radioactive source was opened at one time, to reduce the exposure to
radiation and to eliminate the possibility of interference, and the chemical was
placed in the designated origin point (starting with alpha).
Bibliography
Dictionary.com, 2014. Dictionary.com. [Online]
Available at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/radiation?s=t
[Accessed 1 August 2014].
Guide to the Nuclear Wallchart, 2000. The Discovery of Radioactivity. [Online]
Available at: http://www2.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/03/4.html
[Accessed 22 July 2014].
Harold D. Nathan, P., 1993. Cliffs Quick Review - Chemistry. 1st ed. Lincoln,
Nebraska: Cliffs Notes Incorporated.
Nave, R., 2014. Radioactivity - Beta Decay. [Online]
Available at: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/beta.html#c3
[Accessed 27 August 2014].
UCDAVIS - CHEMWiki Hyperlibrary, n.d. Discovery of Radioactivity. [Online]
Available at:
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Nuclear_Chemistry/Radioactivity/Di
scovery_of_Radioactivity
[Accessed 22 July 2014].
Wilkinson, J., 1993. Essential of Physics. 1st ed. South Melbourne: Macmillan
Education Australia.
Wilkinson, J., 1993. Essentials of Physics - Practical Workbook. 1st ed. South
Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia.

Stopping Radiation - Physics EEI (Kyle Jeffrey)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Stopping Radiation - Physics EEI (Kyle Jeffrey)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

To investigate the characteristics of different radiation types to

Distance (cm): Increments in figure 4

Material: See figure 5

Temperature (c): Values in figure 6

Radiation Type: Alpha (Po-210), Beta (Sr-90), Gamma (Co-60)

Radiation Count (rad/min.)

The set distances used (dependent on what radiation is being tested)

Radioactive Source: Polonium-210 (alpha), Strontium-90 (beta),

Position of Radioactive Materials

The material samples tested on remained the same throughout the

Wind all doors were closed to reduce its presence (preliminary

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Room Temperature (winter): Minimal Fluctuations

Size - The material samples tested were chosen to minimise

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

energy elctromagnetic rays from the nucleus of an atom (Wilkinson, 1993). In

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Polonium - 210 (emits Alpha radiation)

Strontium - 90 (emits Beta radiation)

Cobalt - 60 (emits Gamma radiation)

Infrared Thermometer (C)

2 Heating Pads (C)

Tested Materials (B):

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Radiation vs. Material (fig.6):

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Radiation vs. Temperature (fig.5):

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Radiation vs. Materials:

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Radiation vs. Temperature:

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

When comparing the data recorded in graphs 4-7, two different

compared to the trend however not enough to consider an extreme

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Background Radiation Levels Figure 9:

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Secondary Data - Results Figure 10

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Kyle Jeffrey|QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen