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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the power measured by a detector at a distance from an isotropic point source of electromagnetic energy. Participants explore various approaches to integrate intensity over the detector's area, considering factors such as attenuation and the geometry of the setup.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose using the inverse square law and Beer’s law to calculate the intensity and power received by the detector.
  • Others argue about the need to account for attenuation and the angle of incidence on the detector, suggesting that the power distribution may vary across the detector's surface.
  • A participant mentions integrating intensity over the entire area of the detector, questioning the reasoning behind their approach.
  • There is a suggestion to simplify the problem without calculus, though the applicability of this approach is debated.
  • Some participants discuss the need for a general formula to compute power received, considering the flat nature of the detector.
  • One participant describes using Pythagorean theorem to find distances relevant to the problem, indicating a geometric approach to the solution.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the best method to calculate the power received by the detector, with no consensus on a single approach. Some participants agree on the isotropic emission assumption, while others raise concerns about the implications of the detector's geometry and attenuation effects.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions regarding the integration process and the specific definitions of variables involved in the calculations. The discussion reflects uncertainty about how to accurately model the physical scenario.

Nadi Yazbeck
Messages
18
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


An isotropic point source radiates electromagnetic energy, and its output is measured by a thin disc-like detector of radius R. Calculate the power measured by the detector at distance h from the source, assuming that the plane of the disc is orthogonal to the line of sight between source and disc centre.

Homework Equations


beer's law, and inverse square law

The Attempt at a Solution


i tried calculating the intensity over a radius, and integrating it over the whole circle.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nadi Yazbeck said:

The Attempt at a Solution


i tried calculating the intensity over a radius, and integrating it over the whole circle.
Please show details of what you did. We can't comment on what we don't see.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nadi Yazbeck
sure, here it is.
thanks
 

Attachments

  • mpy attempt 1.png
    mpy attempt 1.png
    52.5 KB · Views: 510
i think that's wrong, i tried using the intensity over every value of r(with an integral), accounting for attenuation with beer's law.
i will try including a picture as soon as I'm done with it, do you think it should work or is there some reasoning mistake i don't see?
thanks
nadi
 
Nadi Yazbeck said:
sure, here it is.
thanks
I'm afraid that I can't make out the text in your picture. Can you provide a closeup?

The problem statement is not specific about how the quantity of electromagnetic energy being emitted by the point source is specified. Why not just assume that it's being emitted with an overall power ##P_o## isotropically?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nadi Yazbeck
the paper with the answer isn't with me right now, but i can try to explain it here:
first, i did a derivative from 0 to tetamax of h/cos(teta) then i tried to integrate the result over the circumference of the circle(from 0 to 2pi.r) I'm not sure if that makes sense, every time i read it over it makes less sense to be honest.
the lecturer didn't say anything else, i copy pasted the question on here, i think he wants us to keep the variables (ie: r, R, h, ...), and precise any other variable we add.
what would i do with the overall power, is the a specific formula for attenuation of power depending on distance?
thanks a lo.
nadi.
 
Perhaps you're overthinking the problem ? I can see a very, very simple way to solve this without calculus...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nadi Yazbeck
Nik_2213 said:
Perhaps you're overthinking the problem ? I can see a very, very simple way to solve this without calculus...
what do you mean?
does your solution account for attenuation, and the angle at which it hits the detector(the bigger the angle the fewer particles hits the detector)?
thanks
nadi
 
Yes.
 
  • #10
can i get a hint? hahahahaha
Nik_2213 said:
Yes.
 
  • #11
Find a physical analogue such as a football plus a coin of radius R, think about them for a while...

I'm sorry, I don't often play in this forum, so I'd prefer a mentor or moderator to give the nod before I say more.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gneill
  • #12
If you assume that the electromagnetic energy is emitted isotropically, with overall power ##P_o##, then at some distance r that power is spread out over some larger area (what sort of area surrounds the central point at a constant radius r?).
 
  • #13
but the detector is flat, so the power would be different for each radius...
is there a way to compute a general formula?
thanks
nadi
gneill said:
If you assume that the electromagnetic energy is emitted isotropically, with overall power ##P_o##, then at some distance r that power is spread out over some larger area (what sort of area surrounds the central point at a constant radius r?).
 
  • #14
Nadi Yazbeck said:
but the detector is flat, so the power would be different for each radius...
is there a way to compute a general formula?
thanks
nadi
At any reasonable distance the area of the disk will be very close to its projection onto the surface of a sphere centered on the central point with that distance as its radius. If you want a solution for when the disk is close to the central point (so that the radial distance varies noticeably over the disk surface), then you'll need to do a bit of calculus, taking into account the power per square meter at each position of the disk. That power per square meter still varies inversely as the radius of the sphere that passes through that point on the disk.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nadi Yazbeck
  • #15
Nik_2213 said:
Find a physical analogue such as a football plus a coin of radius R, think about them for a while...

I'm sorry, I don't often play in this forum, so I'd prefer a mentor or moderator to give the nod before I say more.
i'm not really sure what you mean... i will try to think about it
thanks
 
  • #16
Nik_2213 said:
Find a physical analogue such as a football plus a coin of radius R
A football brings to mind different objects depending upon where in the world you live :smile:
 
  • #17
gneill said:
A football brings to mind different objects depending upon where in the world you live :smile:
i was thinking about a soccer ball hahahahaah are you talking about an american football?
 
  • #18
{Cough...}
Soccer Ball. Volley ball. Basket ball. Beach ball.

Sorry, I had the misfortune to attend a sports-mad school.
In Winter, we played through ankle-deep mud or over frozen corrugations with a brown, prolate spheroid.
In Summer, we played 'Russian Roulette' with red, fist-sized cannon balls...
;-))
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nadi Yazbeck and gneill
  • #19
Nadi Yazbeck said:
i was thinking about a soccer ball hahahahaah are you talking about an american football?
'fraid so. Just sayin' :smile:
 
  • #20
gneill said:
At any reasonable distance the area of the disk will be very close to its projection onto the surface of a sphere centered on the central point with that distance as its radius. If you want a solution for when the disk is close to the central point (so that the radial distance varies noticeably over the disk surface), then you'll need to do a bit of calculus, taking into account the power per square meter at each position of the disk. That power per square meter still varies inversely as the radius of the sphere that passes through that point on the disk.

i need to account for for the change in distance, but even if i find a way to calculate it, i can't figure out how to find the air to apply the intensity over(i thought about doing an integral with the circumference, what do you think?)
 
  • #21
Nadi Yazbeck said:
i can't figure out how to find the air to apply the intensity over
Not sure what that means. What air is involved? Ah, do you mean that there's attenuation by the air through which the radiation passes?
 
  • #22
gneill said:
Not sure what that means. What air is involved? Ah, do you mean that there's attenuation by the air through which the radiation passes?

i meant area, sorry I'm used to french hahahahaha
 
  • #24
Nadi Yazbeck said:
That's my work, do you think it's right?
https://s.amsu.ng/6HHsQQx466QN
I'm sorry, I tried to read your image but had to give up trying to make best guesses at what I was seeing versus what I thought I should be seeing :smile:

Can you describe what your approach was and maybe type out a few equations?

If I were to approach this problem I'd assume an isotropic power emission ##P_o## and then define the flux at a given radial distance from the source to be ##\Phi = \frac{P_o}{4 \pi r^2}##, basically spreading the power evenly over the surface of a sphere of radius r. Then I'd think about how various spheres of some radius r intersect the disk. Then integrate over the disk to sum the intercepted flux.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nadi Yazbeck
  • #25
gneill said:
I'm sorry, I tried to read your image but had to give up trying to make best guesses at what I was seeing versus what I thought I should be seeing :smile:

Can you describe what your approach was and maybe type out a few equations?

If I were to approach this problem I'd assume an isotropic power emission ##P_o## and then define the flux at a given radial distance from the source to be ##\Phi = \frac{P_o}{4 \pi r^2}##, basically spreading the power evenly over the surface of a sphere of radius r. Then I'd think about how various spheres of some radius r intersect the disk. Then integrate over the disk to sum the intercepted flux.

hahahaha sure, i will try to explain the best i can:
first i used Pythagoras to find the distance (sqrt(r^2+h^2))
then i used the inverse square law to find the intensity when the radius is r (ir=i0/(4.pi.d^4))
then i integrated ir*Ar (area) from 0 to R (max radius)
Ar changes depending on the radius, = 2*pi*r
so P= integral(0,R) of ir*Ar=((i0/(4.pi.sqrt(r^2+h^2))*(2*pi*r))
then i just plugged the integral in an online integral calculator.i will try doing it like you said, could you check if what i did makes sense, and as soon as I'm done, i will post the result i got working like you said?
thanks a lot
nadi
 
  • #26
Nadi Yazbeck said:
i will try doing it like you said, could you check if what i did makes sense, and as soon as I'm done, i will post the result i got working like you said?
I will if I'm online and can read your work. You might want to investigate using LaTeX syntax to type out your equations. Then helpers can easily read, quote, and comment on them.
 
  • #27
o
gneill said:
I will if I'm online and can read your work. You might want to investigate using LaTeX syntax to type out your equations. Then helpers can easily read, quote, and comment on them.
okay, let me know what you think about my work please, my final result is: (-R^2 * i0)/(4h^2 (h^2 + R^2))
with: R: radius of detector, h: distance between the detector and the source, i0: intensity at the source.
thanks
 
  • #28
Nadi Yazbeck said:
o

okay, let me know what you think about my work please, my final result is: (-R^2 * i0)/(4h^2 (h^2 + R^2))
with: R: radius of detector, h: distance between the detector and the source, i0: intensity at the source.
thanks
I find it hard to comment instructively without seeing the details of your work, but I can say that I'm rather dubious about the minus sign.

Can you type out the integration you performed?
 
  • #29
  • #30
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:
upload_2018-11-3_18-6-16.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-11-3_18-6-16.png
    upload_2018-11-3_18-6-16.png
    12.1 KB · Views: 663

Similar threads

  • · Replies 152 ·
6
Replies
152
Views
11K
  • · 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
4K
Replies
14
Views
13K