Calculate Angle for Multiple Polarisers to Reduce Intensity <10%

AI Thread Summary
To achieve a total rotation of 45° with multiple polarising filters while ensuring intensity reduction remains below 10%, the angle between the filters must be calculated using the formula I=Imaxcos²(n(θ/n)). The initial attempt yielded 9 filters at 5 degrees each, resulting in an intensity of 0.933, which is acceptable. However, it was later clarified that this is not the smallest integer solution, as the angle does not need to be a whole number. The realization that radians were being used incorrectly led to a reevaluation of the calculations. Correcting this approach is essential for finding the optimal configuration of polarizers.
Mnemonic
Messages
21
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


You use a sequence of ideal polarising filters, each with its axis making the same angle with the axis of the previous filter, to rotate the plane of polarisation of a polarised light beam by a total of 45°. You wish to have an intensity reduction no larger than 10%.

What is the angle between multiple polarisers?

Homework Equations


I=Imaxcos2(θ)

The Attempt at a Solution


For multiple polarisers I=Imaxcos2*n(θ/n) where n is an integer

So I=cos2*n(θ/n) with I>0.9

The only integer solutions I was able to obtain was 9 polarisers separated by 5 degrees (n=9). This would give I=0.933 which is less than 10% loss if Imax=1.

However, this doesn't appear to be giving me the correct solution. What am I missing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mnemonic said:
So I=cos2*n(θ/n) with I>0.9

The only integer solutions I was able to obtain was 9 polarisers separated by 5 degrees (n=9).
Using the formula, I find that n = 9 is not the smallest integer value of n that will work. (θ does not need to be an integer number of degrees.)
 
  • Like
Likes Mnemonic
TSny said:
Using the formula, I find that n = 9 is not the smallest integer value of n that will work. (θ does not need to be an integer number of degrees.)
Was using radians in solution. Thanks for making me look back and double-check!
 
OK. Good.
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
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