Calculated solar irradiation not matching up with measured

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter KarenRei
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Solar
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion revolves around discrepancies between calculated solar irradiation values using Planck's law and actual measured data. The user employs a solar model incorporating real-world data and a blackbody curve, utilizing constants such as the effective radius of the sun (7.00e8 m) and blackbody temperature (5778 K). While initial calculations for short wavelengths (e.g., 280 nm) yield higher values than reported data, longer wavelengths show the real-world figures surpassing calculated values, indicating a misunderstanding of apparent versus actual temperature in blackbody radiation. The user concludes that the apparent temperature may explain the inconsistencies in the data.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Planck's law and blackbody radiation
  • Familiarity with solar irradiation measurement techniques
  • Knowledge of SI units and scientific constants
  • Basic principles of thermal radiation and spectral analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of apparent temperature in blackbody radiation
  • Research solar spectrum data from sources like NREL
  • Explore advanced modeling techniques for solar energy calculations
  • Learn about discrepancies in blackbody models and real-world applications
USEFUL FOR

Researchers in solar energy, physicists studying thermal radiation, and engineers developing solar models will benefit from this discussion.

KarenRei
Messages
99
Reaction score
6
Hi all! I'm trying to build up a solar model, using real-world data where available, and filling in the weak low and high frequency extremes of the spectrum with a simple blackbody curve. All well and good. But when I apply Planck's law to the known data it goes awry!

Here's what I'm working with.

Effective radius of the sun's radiating surface: said to be about 7,00e8m
Blackbody temperature of the sun: Said to be 5778
Earth distance to the sun: 149597870700m
Calculated radial angle: 9,36e-3 (actual said to be 9,35 - so far, so good)
Calculated steradians: 6,88e-5 (actual said to be 6,87e-5 - again, so far so good).
Misc constants:
Planck: 6,6260700400E-34
Speed of light: 299792458
Stefan-Boltzmann: 1,3806485200E-23

... that is, staying with SI units.

Okay, now we get to Planck's equation (in terms of wavelength). When I apply it first to short wavelengths - say, 280nm - I come up with 9,5045e12 W/m^2/sr (6,5377e-1 W/m^2/nm). Actual reported:

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/spectra/am1.5/astmg173/ASTMG173.xls

... is said to be 8,2000e-2 W/m^2/nm. Okay, my value is significantly higher, but that's not necessarily a problem because the sun isn't a perfect blackbody, there's plenty of gaps. As I start going to longer wavelengths, the numbers start to converge toward a perfect blackbody, and then... the real-world power figures *pass* the calculated figures! For example, at 495nm the real-world spectrum is 2,0510e0 W/m^2/nm, but I calculate that a perfect blackbody would emit 1,8135e0.

Obviously the real-world should never be higher than the calculated! So something's wrong here. What do you think the problem might be?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Wait, never mind, I've got it; that figure is just an apparent temperature, not an actual temperature; it's based on how hot a blackbody would have to be to emit the same amount of energy. So since some areas will be under the ideal blackbody curve, some areas have to be over for the total energy represented to match up with the equivalent blackbody.

Okay, good, I didn't mess up my equation setup. :)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K