Converting w/m2 to uJ/mm2, 4usec pulse

  • Thread starter Thread starter jstamour802
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pulse
AI Thread Summary
To convert light energy from 138 W/m2 to microjoules per square millimeter (uJ/mm2) for a 4 microsecond pulse, the calculation yields 5.54e-4 uJ/mm2. This conversion is valid under the assumption that the light pulse has a boxcar shape in time. The user confirms they are working with controlled square pulses, which supports the accuracy of the calculation. Concerns were raised about previously provided numbers from a Xenon strobe, but this conversion appears correct. The discussion emphasizes the importance of pulse shape in energy calculations.
jstamour802
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I need to convert light energy: 138W/m2 to uJoules / mm2, at a 4usec pulse

J = W * seconds
J = 138 W/m2 * 4e-6
= 5.54e-4 J/m2 5.54e-4 J/m2 = 5.54e-4 uJ/mm2

answer:
5.54e-4 uJ/mm2Does this look correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is correct if the light pulse can be assumed to have a box car shape in time.
 
blue_leaf77 said:
It is correct if the light pulse can be assumed to have a box car shape in time.

Thanks blue_leaf. Yes, I have nice controlled square pulses. I was given some numbers to beat by a Xenon strobe, but the numbers seemed off. Good to know.
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

A Interpretation of Lagrangian solution (complex numbers)
Replies
2
Views
1K
Moment of inertia problem involving a cylinder rolling down an incline
Replies
11
Views
2K
Calculating Minimum Width for 5 Interference Maxima
Replies
1
Views
5K
How Many Square Meters of Solar Panels Are Needed for Household Usage?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Magnetic moment and magnetic field and dot product
Replies
13
Views
2K
Why Does the Second Block Accelerate Without an Apparent Force?
Replies
15
Views
2K
How do I accurately calculate work done against friction?
Replies
11
Views
2K
Atwood with Sliding mass and real pulley
Replies
4
Views
4K
How do I calculate the fluence of a Gaussian Laser Beam?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Conservative forces, Nonconservative forces and Potential Energy
Replies
9
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top