For example, suppose for sample 1 there are 20,000 counts in the 0.412-MeV peak (gold), 190 counts in the 0.511-MeV peak (copper), and 450 counts in the 0.654-MeV peak (silver). Suppose also that standard 1 yielded 10,000, 500, and 400 counts for these three peaks (corrected for decay), respectively. Then the ratio for gold would be (20,000/10,000) = 2.00, the ratio for copper would be (190/500) = 0.380, and the ratio for silver would be (450/400) = 1.13.
Finally, the activity ratio of copper to gold would be (0.380/2.00) = 0.190, and the activity ratio of silver to gold would be (1.13/2.00) = 0.565.
Because each sample was irradiated with an identical standard, and counted in an identical arrangement, the last two ratios will be the same for different samples if, and only if, the concentrations of gold, silver, and copper in those samples are in identical proportions. This will be true no matter where in the reactor or for how long the irradiation took place.
Now the scientist presents the data to you. You immediately see that (a) the good coins fall into two groups, one with a silver to gold activity ratio of approximately 0.56 and a copper to gold ratio of approximately 0.20 and a second group with these ratios approximately 0.51 and 0.18; (b) the coins you were certain were forgeries have distinctly higher ratios ranging from 0.60 to 0.65 for silver to gold and from 0.23 to 0.30 for copper to gold; and (c) of the three suspected coins, two have ratios that fall into the range of the known forgeries, but one, with ratios of 0.552 and 0.198, is probably genuine.
You present the result to the museum director in the form of a graph (see the [figure on page 41]) and a few weeks later, 43 coins are added to the permanent exhibits of the museum, while 7 are discarded.
In a Criminology Laboratory
The Problem
You are a scientist working in the criminology laboratory of a large metropolitan city. A detective brings you a minute sample of paint taken from the clothing of a hit-and-run victim. He has a suspect whose automobile paint seems to match that sample. The suspect was found in his parked automobile, not far from the scene of the accident. He seems to fit the description given by two witnesses, and he is extremely nervous. You scrape a small sample of paint from a recently damaged area of the suspect’s car, and, (with the aid of a microscope) find that the pigment content seems to be the same as that taken from the victim’s clothing. But, are they really from the same paint?
The Solution
You know that paint, like almost everything else, contains very small quantities of impurities that are present only by accident and do not affect its properties as a useful material. The trace impurities, as they are called, will vary from batch to batch of the same paint. Very rarely will a match be obtained in both type and concentration of trace impurities in two samples if they are not from the same batch.