Lunar Eclipse: Umbra and penumbra radii

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the radii of the umbra and penumbra during a lunar eclipse using specific equations. Participants clarify that P and U represent distances, not areas, and emphasize the importance of understanding the equations rather than just substituting values. There is confusion regarding the parameters used in the equations, particularly the diameter of the object casting the shadow, which should be the Moon rather than the Earth. Suggestions include drawing diagrams to visualize the problem and using similar triangles for better comprehension. Overall, the conversation highlights the need for clearer instruction and resources on the topic.
Calico snail
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Find the radii of the umbra and penumbra circles drawn drawn perpendicular to the EMS axis, formed at a distance equal to that of the moon from the Earth.


Homework Equations


(From: http://www.opticiansfriend.com/articles/equations.html#Shadows)

D2 / L1 = (P + U) / (L1 + L2)
D1 / L1 = P / L2
Total Shadow = 2P + U

D1 = Diameter of light source
D2 = Diameter of object between light source and Shadow
L1 = Length from light source to L1
L2 = Length from L1 to Umbra
U = Umbra
P = Penumbra

The Attempt at a Solution


I substituted 12,576 km for D2 as the diameter of Earth and 149.6 million km for the distance between the Earth and sun. My calculations revealed that P+U= 1305010.784. Am I misguided in the belief that these equations give my the area of the circles from which I can extrapolate the radii?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The equations don't suggest that either P or U are areas.

If you show your calculations, it might give a better clue what your value for P + U means.
 
I found a completely different equation:
penumbral radius: Rp = 1.02 * (0.998340 * Pm + Ss + Ps)
umbral radius: Ru = 1.02 * (0.998340 * Pm - Ss + Ps)

where: Pm = Equatorial horizontal parallax of the Moon,
Ss = Geocentric semi-diameter of the Sun, and
Ps = Equatorial horizontal parallax of the Sun.

Should this equation work? My instructor gave me a question eons beyond my current level of understanding.
 
D2 should be the diameter of the object casting the shadow - namely the Moon.
Draw a picture and try to understand the equation instead of blindly plugging in data on a poorly understood equation. Chances of getting it right will improve significantly.
 
dauto said:
D2 should be the diameter of the object casting the shadow - namely the Moon.
Draw a picture and try to understand the equation instead of blindly plugging in data on a poorly understood equation. Chances of getting it right will improve significantly.

Are you saying that the moon casts a shadow in a lunar eclipse? My problem is that my teacher has not even begun to mention anything about this in class, and has not provided any resources for me. I'm just trying to learn how to calculate the radius of the umbral and penumbral circle in a lunar eclipse.
 
Calico snail said:
Are you saying that the moon casts a shadow in a lunar eclipse? My problem is that my teacher has not even begun to mention anything about this in class, and has not provided any resources for me. I'm just trying to learn how to calculate the radius of the umbral and penumbral circle in a lunar eclipse.

You didn't indicate that this was for a lunar eclipse, except where you said you used the diameter of the Earth as D2.
Clearly P and U must be distances, not areas. The LHS of each equation is a distance divided by a distance, so is dimensionless . The RHS must therefore be dimensionless. So P and U must have the same dimension as L1 and L2.
However, the way the author has defined U and P is a bit surprising (to me). The clue is in the line Total = 2P+U, not P+U, nor 2P+2U.
It isn't that hard to figure out these equations. Draw a decent diagram and look for similar triangles.

I'm not sure what the second set of equations you posted is saying. There's no explanation given for those magic numbers. As I understand it, lunar parallax is an angle, so it makes no sense to add it to a distance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax#Lunar_parallax
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top