Calculate the power measured by the detector at distance h from the source

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the power measured by a detector from an isotropic point source of electromagnetic energy at a distance h. Participants explore using the inverse square law and integration to account for intensity and attenuation effects, with one user suggesting a simpler approach without calculus. The conversation includes attempts to clarify the integration process and the significance of variables like the detector's radius (R) and source intensity (i0). Ultimately, a user arrives at a formula involving logarithmic expressions, indicating progress in solving the problem. The thread highlights the collaborative effort in tackling complex physics problems and the importance of clear communication in mathematical discussions.
  • #31
gneill said:
Typing out is always better. It makes quoting and commenting much easier. Many helpers will just abandon ship if they have to do too much work to respond.

But, making an effort to clip, edit, and post a piece of your image, can you explain the exponent of 4 in your equation:
View attachment 233381

thanks, i will type from now on,it's from the inverse square law(S/(4*pi*d^4)=ir)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Hmm. I'd say that the power is spread over the surface area of a sphere of a given radius, so the flux would go as

##\Phi = \frac{P_o}{4 \pi r^2}##

Where r is the distance from the source.

The same should apply to intensity.
 
  • #33
gneill said:
Hmm. I'd say that the power is spread over the surface area of a sphere of a given radius, so the flux would go as

##\Phi = \frac{P_o}{4 \pi r^2}##

Where r is the distance from the source.

The same should apply to intensity.

oh okay, so if i replace the 4 with a 2, the final result is i0(ln(h^2+R^2)-2ln(h))/4, does that make more sense?
thanks
 
  • #34
Yes, it does to me :smile:

I think you could do some manipulation of the logs to get a more concise version, but otherwise I think you're doing fine.
 
  • Like
Likes Nadi Yazbeck
  • #35
gneill said:
Yes, it does to me :smile:

I think you could do some manipulation of the logs to get a more concise version, but otherwise I think you're doing fine.

that's great! i have been working on this for almost a week and couldn't figure it out hahahaha
thanks a lot!
nadi
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 152 ·
6
Replies
152
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
13K