!

"# %&
'"()"*)+, -+.,*),/ 0*"*)1*)21
34- 5 &67
8.*9+:; <"=>+: ?9)@@1
!"# ?":*,A:1;
?"*:)2B C+.(=1
D:+,1+, 'A19
!"# ?A:E+:FA(; GHG6HI&
J.A J"*A; KHILHI&
J"*A 0.#F)**A(; KHILHI&




8#1*:"2*;
1he ldea behlnd Lhls experlmenL was Lo observe Lhe varlaLlons ln counLlng raLe due Lo random nuclear
decay. Along wlLh Lhls goal, we were Lo use Lools of sLaLlsLlcs LhaL would allow us Lo evaluaLe Lhe
accuracy and preclslon of Lhe nuclear lnsLrumenLs. We deLermlned ln Lhe experlmenL Lhrough
calculaLlons of glven equaLlons LhaL our recorded daLa fell wlLhln Lhe sLaLlsLlcal flucLuaLlon and,
Lherefore, deLermlned LhaL our equlpmenL was ln correcL worklng order and flL for more measuremenLs.
M,*:+(.2*)+,;
1hls lab reporL conLalns lnformaLlon on Lhe experlmenL LlLled, 8adlaLlon CounLlng SLaLlsLlcs conducLed aL
ennsylvanla SLaLe unlverslLy ln a laboraLory of Lhe Academlc ro[ecLs 8ulldlng for Lhe class nuC L 430.
1hls reporL wlll conLaln Lhe equlpmenL used ln Lhe laboraLory experlmenL, Lhe procedure of Lhe
experlmenL, Lhe daLa and resulLs recovered from Lhe experlmenL, an ln-depLh analysls and dlscusslon of
Lhe resulLs, concluslons from Lhe resulLs, as well as suggesLlons for fuLure work. uurlng Lhls experlmenL,
analyses were conducLed of sources emlLLlng, alpha and beLa radlaLlon. 1he maln ob[ecLlve of Lhls
experlmenL was Lo measure varlaLlons ln counLlng raLe due Lo nuclear decay uslng a CM deLecLor.
<9A+:=;
SLaLlsLlcal devlaLlon ls a sclence used for Lhe beneflL of flndlng flucLuaLlons ln daLa ln order Lo deLermlne
wheLher or noL LhaL parLlcular seL of daLa ls wlLhln a cerLaln degree of accuracy. WlLh Lhls measure of
accuracy, one can deLermlne lf Lhe seL of daLa ln quesLlon ls accepLable. ln Lhls experlmenL Lhe Lrlals of
daLa are represenLed by Lhe pulses creaLed Lhrough Lhe deLecLor Lhrough Lhe deLecLlon of radlaLlon
from a selecLed source.
Assumlng LhaL Lhe deLecLor sysLem ln use has a small dead Llme, one can assume LhaL nearly all quanLa
aLLenuaLed by Lhe deLecLor wlll be recorded as pulses for Lhe counLlng sLaLlsLlcs. 1he Appendlx provlded
ln Lhe Manual
1
glves equaLlons for Lerms LhaL are used Lo flnd sLaLlsLlcal flucLuaLlon ln Lhe daLa recorded.
1he average and sLandard devlaLlon are Lwo very lmporLanL Lerms for Lhe acLual uLlllzaLlon of Lhe
recorded daLa. ChauveneL's CrlLerlon and Lhe 8aLlo 1esL are Lwo greaL Lools for deLermlnlng lf Lhe daLa
falls wlLhln an accepLable sLaLlsLlcal flucLuaLlon.









5N.)@FA,*;
A nlM bln was used as our prlmary houslng unlL for Lhe lndlvldual componenLs used ln our experlmenLs.
An oscllloscope was used Lo vlsually analyze Lhe daLa collecLed from our experlmenLs. 1he oscllloscope
was connecLed beLween Lhe lnpuL of Lhe slngle channel analyzer and Lhe ouLpuL of Lhe ampllfler. 1hls
made Lhe vlsual daLa collecLlon sLralghL from Lhe CM deLecLor Lhrough Lhe pulse lnverLer and Lhrough
Lhe ampllfler. Also used ln Lhe experlmenL were a shelf box Lo house a Celger-Mueller Lube LhaL held Lhe
radlaLlon sources, a pulse lnverLer, a hlgh volLage supply, and a Llmer/counLer. A llsL of Lhe componenLs'
model and serlal numbers ls llsLed ln llgure 1 and Lhe connecLlons used for Lhls equlpmenL ls
represenLed ln llgure 2.
LqulpmenL Model number Serlal number 8ev.
Cscllloscope 1ekLronlx 1uS 2002C C031033
CM ueLecLor Lberllne P-190
ulse lnverLer
SCA CrLec 330A 1036 8
Ampllfler Canberra 2022 10062336
1lmer/CounLer CrLec 871 1036 23
nlM 8ln CrLec 4001C #4 223382
ower Supply CrLec 4002u 723720 C
Plgh volLage Supply 8orLon 323 3163

O)/.:A I
<"#>A +E -+F@+,A,* P+(A> ",( 0A:)"> 3.F#A:1


?:+2A(.:A;
1he procedure used for Lhls experlmenL followed Lhe Sprlng 2012 LxperlmenL 4 LaboraLory Manual.
J"*";
20 Trials
Data: Theoretical Stdev Ratio Test
Chauvenet's
Crit.
962 31.02 0.46 0.90
991 31.48 0.02
1003 31.67 0.40
986 31.40 0.14
1023 31.98 1.04
1008 31.75 0.56
1003 31.67 0.40
965 31.06 0.81
1021 31.95 0.97
998 31.59 0.24
978 31.27 0.39
1002 31.65 0.37
950 30.82 1.28
979 31.29 0.36
1009 31.76 0.59
999 31.61 0.27
983 31.35 0.24
975 31.22 0.49
984 31.37 0.20
989 31.45 0.04
Sample Mean:
Standard
Deviation: Chi-Square
990.40 19.14 7.03

O)/.:A G
G7Q-+.,* <:)"> J"*"



Run Value Run Value Run Value Run Value Run Value Run Value Run Value Run Value
1 3 26 6 51 7 76 5 101 4 126 4 151 6 176 6
2 4 27 3 52 9 77 4 102 3 127 4 152 6 177 1
3 3 28 5 53 2 78 2 103 4 128 5 153 5 178 6
4 3 29 5 54 6 79 7 104 6 129 4 154 5 179 8
5 6 30 4 55 4 80 3 105 2 130 4 155 3 180 5
6 3 31 2 56 5 81 7 106 6 131 3 156 2 181 4
7 1 32 5 57 8 82 7 107 5 132 1 157 4 182 2
8 3 33 4 58 7 83 2 108 4 133 5 158 3 183 6
9 2 34 5 59 3 84 5 109 4 134 6 159 6 184 6
10 5 35 2 60 6 85 6 110 3 135 4 160 6 185 3
11 2 36 4 61 1 86 3 111 3 136 7 161 7 186 7
12 2 37 1 62 3 87 1 112 6 137 6 162 6 187 3
13 4 38 4 63 4 88 4 113 4 138 6 163 2 188 2
14 3 39 3 64 2 89 4 114 3 139 4 164 4 189 7
15 7 40 6 65 2 90 5 115 3 140 6 165 4 190 1
16 5 41 3 66 8 91 3 116 2 141 2 166 6 191 3
17 5 42 4 67 4 92 6 117 4 142 7 167 4 192 2
18 2 43 2 68 7 93 8 118 4 143 1 168 2 193 1
19 4 44 4 69 4 94 3 119 6 144 5 169 9 194 4
20 5 45 1 70 7 95 3 120 4 145 8 170 5 195 5
21 3 46 3 71 7 96 1 121 5 146 5 171 6 196 6
22 2 47 4 72 4 97 5 122 3 147 4 172 2 197 5
23 5 48 4 73 6 98 2 123 0 148 5 173 5 198 4
24 4 49 2 74 4 99 5 124 4 149 3 174 4 199 4
25 6 50 4 75 3 100 9 125 1 150 5 175 5 200 6
First 100 200 Second 100
Sample Mean 4.15 4.23 4.31

Sample Standard Deviation 1.908910525 1.845025908 1.784869064

O)/.:A K
G77Q-+.,* <:)"> J"*"







Histogram
Development
for the 200
Trial Sample
Bin Actual Poisson
0 1 2.91
1 12 12.31
2 25 26.04
3 32 36.71
4 47 38.83
5 31 32.85
6 30 23.16
7 14 13.99
8 5 7.40
9 3 3.48
10 0 1.47
11 0 0.57
12 0 0.20
13 0 0.06
14 0 0.02
15 0 0.01

O)/.:A &
82*."> ",( ?+)11+,)", J)1*:)#.*)+, E+: G77Q-+.,* J"*"








Histogram
Development
for the first
100 Trial
Sample
Bin Actual Poisson
0 0 1.58
1 6 6.54
2 15 13.58
3 19 18.78
4 22 19.48
5 15 16.17
6 9 11.18
7 9 6.63
8 3 3.44
9 2 1.59
10 0 0.66
11 0 0.25
12 0 0.09
13 0 0.03
14 0 0.01
15 0 0.00

O)/.:A 6
82*."> ",( ?+)11+,)", J)1*:)#.*)+, E+: I77Q-+.,* J"*"







J)12.11)+,;
A. 20-SAMLL
1. CompuLe xe and S for Lhls sample, (LquaLlons (1) and (2) ln Lhe Appendlx A.) Compare Lhese
resulLs wlLh Lhose obLalned uslng Lhe compuLer. Also converL Lhese values lnLo unlLs of counLs
per mlnuLe (cpm). lrom Lhe experlmenLal mean compuLe Lhe besL esLlmaLe of Lhe Lrue sLandard
devlaLlon, boLh ln counLs and cpm. Compare Lhe experlmenLal sLandard devlaLlon wlLh Lhe
expecLed sLandard devlaLlon compuLed from xe .
A: uslng LquaLlons 1 and 2 from Lhe Appendlx, was calculaLed Lo equal 990.40 and S was
calculaLed Lo be 19.14.1he compuLer resulLs ylelded LhaL was equal Lo 990.40 and S was
equal Lo 19.14, causlng no error.
990.40 counLs = 39424 cpm
19.14 counLs = 1148.4 cpm
1he besL esLlmaLe of Lhe Lrue sLandard devlaLlon ls calculaLed Lo equal 19.14 counLs, whlch
equals 1148.4 cpm. 1he experlmenLal sLandard devlaLlon, accordlng Lo Lxcel, equals 31.47, whlch glves
an error of 39.18.
2. CompuLe l for Lhe flrsL flve of Lhe 20 Lrlals, assumlng a olsson dlsLrlbuLlon. use LquaLlon (7)
ln Appendlx A. Compare Lhese resulLs wlLh Lhose obLalned uslng Lhe compuLer. Should Lhey
dlffer slgnlflcanLly from S or values compuLed ln A-1 above? Lxplaln any dlfferences.
A:
o1 31.01612484
o2 31.48015248
o3 31.67017524
o4 31.40063694
o3 31.98437118
uslng LquaLlon 3 from Lhe Appendlx Lo calculaLe o, Lhese resulLs colnclde wlLh Lhe resulLs recelved from
Lxcel. As Lhe experlmenLal mean and Lhe sLandard devlaLlon are Lhe same for boLh Lhe experlmenLal and
LheoreLlcal resulLs, one wouldn'L Lhlnk LhaL Lhe resulLs would dlffer aL all, whlch Lhey don'L.
3. Apply Lhe 8aLlo 1esL Lo Lhe flrsL Lwo daLa polnLs ln Lhe sample Lo LesL for sLaLlsLlcally lmprobable
behavlor. Pow does Lhls value compare wlLh Lhe correspondlng compuLer value?
A: Applylng Lhe 8aLlo 1esL ln Lhe Appendlx, uslng Lhe flrsL Lwo daLa polnLs, 1 equals 0.46 whlch ls
lower Lhan 3.3 and Lherefore, Lhe LesL ls accepLable. 1he Lxcel calculaLed value maLches Lhe self-
calculaLed value.
4. Apply Lhe ChauveneL's CrlLerlon Lo Lhe flrsL flve Lrlal resulLs and Lo any Lrlals LhaL were ldenLlfled
by Lhe Lxcel spreadsheeL as noL meeLlng Lhe crlLerla. Pow well do your manually calculaLed
values compare Lo Lhe resulLs obLalned uslng Lhe compuLer spreadsheeL? WhaL do Lhese resulLs
Lell you?
A: WlLh a Lrlal counL of 20, ChauveneL's CrlLerlon holds LhaL = 2.24. 1he flrsL flve resulLs from
equaLlon 3 of ChauveneL's CrlLerlon ln Lhe Appendlx yleld: 0.90, 0.02, 0.04, 0.14, and 1.04. none
of Lhese numbers, nor do any oLher of Lhe Lrlals equal or exceed , maklng all of Lhem
accepLable Lrlals. My calculaLed resulLs, wlLh roundlng, equal Lhe Lxcel-calculaLed resulLs.
3. CompuLe Lhe Chl-square for Lhe 20 Lrlal sample used by Lhe Lxcel spreadsheeL for Lhls
calculaLlon. Pow well does your manually calculaLed value compare wlLh LhaL obLalned by Lhe
Lxcel spreadsheeL? WhaL does your value say abouL Lhe quallLy of your sample?
A: uslng LquaLlon 6 from Lhe Appendlx,
2
= 7.028, whlch wlLh roundlng equals 7.03 whlch ls
whaL Lhe Lxcel spreadsheeL calculaLed
2
Lo equal. Accordlng Lo 1able 2
1
, Lhls says LhaL our daLa
ls noL qulLe wlLhln Lhe realm of posslblllLy as more Lhan 99 of our daLa wlll glve a
2
above
7.633, whlle our
2
equals 7.03.
6. lf you had Lo re[ecL a Lrlal polnL from your sample as a resulL of applylng ChauveneL's CrlLerlon,
recalculaLe a new experlmenLal mean and experlmenLal sLandard devlaLlon and reapply Lhe Chl-
square LesL for Lhe resulLlng seL of Lhe now reduced number of Lrlals. uo Lhese resulLs agree any
beLLer wlLh your esLlmaLe of Lhe value of Lhe Lrue sLandard devlaLlon? Pas your Chl-square value
lmproved over LhaL obLalned from Lhe compleLe (20 polnL) daLa seL? Lxplaln any changes
observed.
A: 8y neglecLlng Lhe number closesL Lo ChauveneL's CrlLerlon, Lhe average has seen llLLle change
wlLh only a 0.2 dlfference. 1hls belng sald, Lhe sLandard devlaLlon has noL changed much elLher.
1he
2
acLually follows less of Lhe crlLerlon menLloned earller and sLlll remalns ouL of Lhe realm
of posslblllLy. 1he 99 probablllLy number for 19 Lrlals ls 7.013 and wlLh Lhe new daLa l
calculaLed a
2
of 3.3.
7. Sum Lhe Lhree backgrounds and sum all of Lhe 20 sample counLs, obLalnlng ln Lhls way an
equlvalenL 10-mlnuLe background counL and an equlvalenL 400 second source + background
counL. Assumlng olsson sLaLlsLlcs, compuLe rs (sr) for Lhe neL counL raLe, and express lL ln
unlLs of cpm. Pow do Lhese resulLs compare wlLh Lhose obLalned ln A-1 of Lhls secLlon? Lxplaln
any dlfferences.
A: 8ackground + All 1rlals = 19834. 1hls ls because our background counL was 46 over a perlod of
200 seconds. uslng LquaLlon 4 from Lhe Appendlx, o
sr
ls found Lo equal 14.24. Whlch glve Lhe
counL raLe Lo equal 1983.4 ! 14.24 cpm.

8. 200-SAMLL
1. CompuLe Lhe experlmenLal mean for Lhls daLa seL (noLe: you can slmpllfy Lhls calculaLlon by
deLermlnlng and maklng use of Lhe frequency dlsLrlbuLlon of all recorded Lrlal values). Pow well
does your frequency dlsLrlbuLlon and experlmenLal mean compare wlLh LhaL generaLed by Lhe
Lxcel spreadsheeL?
A: uslng LquaLlon 1 from Lhe Appendlx, was calculaLed Lo be 4.23. My calculaLed mean
maLches perfecLly wlLh Lhe Lxcel-calculaLed mean.

Compare Lhe frequency dlsLrlbuLlon of your daLa Lo Lhe olsson dlsLrlbuLlon (LquaLlon 16,
Appendlx L) calculaLed from Lhe experlmenLal mean. loL boLh dlsLrlbuLlons LogeLher on Lhe
same ploL and commenL on slmllarlLles and dlfferences.
2.

A: 1he acLual frequency dlsLrlbuLlon Lends Lo be hlgher for lndlvldual seLs of counLs Lhan Lhe
predlcLed olssonlan dlsLrlbuLlon.
3. CompuLe Lhe LheoreLlcal sLandard devlaLlon () for your sample. Pow does Lhls value compare
wlLh LhaL obLalned experlmenLally?
A: 1he LheoreLlcal sLandard devlaLlon for Lhls seL of daLa equals 2.06 whlch falrly dlfferenL from
Lhe experlmenLal devlaLlon calculaLed aL 1.83, a dlfference of 10.2.
4. 8ased on your background daLa, whaL ls Lhe lower llmlL of deLecLlon of your sysLem?
A: 8ased on Lhe graphs ln quesLlon 2, Lhe lower llmlL would have Lo be 1 as Lhere are no acLual
counLs of 0 recorded.



0
10
20
30
40
30
1 2 3 4 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 13 16
O
:
A
N
.
A
,
2
=

J
)
1
*
:
)
#
.
R
+
,

-+.,*1
200 1rlal Sample
AcLual olsson
0
3
10
13
20
23
1 2 3 4 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 13 16
O
:
A
N
.
A
,
2
=

J
)
1
*
:
)
#
.
R
+
,

-+.,*1
100 1rlal Sample
AcLual olsson

-+,2>.1)+,1;
lrom Lhe daLa gaLhered ln boLh seLs of our experlmenL, one can deLermlne LhaL our resulLs fell wlLhln an
accepLable range of Lhe predlcLed resulLs. 1he calculaLed mean value and sLandard devlaLlon maLched
perfecLly for boLh seLs of daLa wlLh Lhe LheoreLlcal mean value and sLandard devlaLlon. 1he 8aLlo 1esL
and ChauveneL's CrlLerlon were passed by Lhe daLa perLalnlng Lo Lhe 20-counL daLa, whlch concluded
LhaL our equlpmenL was ln worklng order as we had accepLable flucLuaLlon ln our counLs for every Lrlal.
Powever, our chl-squared value dld noL fall wlLhln Lhe accepLable flucLuaLlon of our daLa. 1hls says LhaL
all of our daLa Lrlals do noL fall wlLhln Lhe same random dlsLrlbuLlon. Powever, even afLer neglecLlng a
Lrlal wlLh a ChauveneL's CrlLerlon closesL Lo Lhe value of , Lhe chl-squared value seemed Lo dlfferenLlaLe
from Lhe accepLable value even furLher. erhaps Lhere was someLhlng wrong wlLh our deLermlnaLlon of
Lhe degrees of freedom when comparlng Lhe chl-squared values.
0.//A1*)+,1 E+: O.*.:A S+:B;
lL would be beneflclal lf Lhe 8aLlo 1esL would have Lo be done by hand afLer a few Lrlals Lo deLermlne
wheLher or noL Lhe daLa was accepLable.
'AEA:A,2A1;
Sprlng 2012 LxperlmenL 4 LaboraLory Manual, 2012
8@@A,()T;
1. x
e =
( x
l
)/ n
2. S= [(1/n-1) (x
l
-x)
2
]
1/2

3. = (x
l
)
1/2

4.
sr
= [(r
L
/L
L
) + (r
b
/L
b
)]
1/2

3. 1 = [ (lx
1
-x
2
l)/(2)
1/2
(x
1
+x
2
)
1/2
] > 3.3
6. = (lx
l
-x
e
l)/(x
e
)
1/2

7. = ((x
l
-x)
2
)/x