Doubt regarding View factor/shape factor of infinite inclined plate

  • Thread starter Thread starter harsh_23
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Radiation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the calculation of the view factor, specifically $$f_{ij}$$, which represents the fraction of radiation from plate $$i$$ that falls on plate $$j$$. The formula $$f_{ij} = 1 - \sin(\alpha/2)$$ is derived based on the assumption that radiation can only travel through a gap between the plates. However, doubts arise regarding whether radiation also escapes to the surrounding environment, suggesting that $$f_{ik} + f_{ij}$$ may not equal 1 if surrounding radiation is considered. The reciprocity theorem is referenced, but concerns are raised about its application if radiation is also directed back to the emitting plate. Ultimately, the validity of the problem is affirmed, despite the complexities introduced by surrounding radiation.
harsh_23
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
We need to prove that fraction of total radiation from plate i falling on plate j is equal to 1-sin(α/2) where both plates are infinite long, share a common edge , have same width and are inclined at an angle α
Relevant Equations
in general fab represent fraction of total radiation from a falling on b

so sum of all fai =1
1000006565.jpg

The figure is infinite out and in the page.

We need to find $$f_{ij}$$ means if $$I$$ is the total radiation plate i is emitting then $$f_{ij}$$ represent fraction of total radiation Falling on plate $$j$$ from plate $$i$$

$$So in general fab represent fraction of total radiation from a falling on b$$
$$so \ sum \ of \ all\ fai =1$$
So in the above image I want to prove why $$f_{ij} = 1-sin(α/2)$$

First thing I have observed in others proofs that they consider radiation going to the surrounding through the gap between the plates and they consider the gap as an imaginary surface let's call $$k$$ with width l




Now we can see that side l is simply $$2w×sin(α/2)$$

Also $$f_{ki}=f_{kj}=1/2$$
(by symmetry)(means 1/2 of $$k$$ radiation is going to plate $j$ and other to I)

Then by reciprocity theorem

(It's a general theorem in radiation)
1000014200.jpg

(It states that $$A_a×f_{ab}=A_b×f_{ba}$$ (here $$A$$ represent area))

$$A_i×f_{ik}=A_k×f_{ki}$$ (now area of plates is proportional to width)

$$W×f_{ik}=2wsin(α/2)×1/2$$

$$f_{ik}=sin(α/2)$$

And $$f_{ik}+f_{ij}=1$$

So $$f_{ij}=1-sin(α/2)$$

Now my doubt is that radiation shouldn't only be going through the gap but also to the surrounding

1000014202.jpg


So $$f_{ik}+f_{ij}≠1$$

If I call surrounding s then

$$f_{ik}+f_{ij}+f_{is}=1$$

And should be same for all

And even if I don't consider the radiation to surrounding then considering the gap be bit spherical (concave) then some radiation should go to itself so saying

$$f_{ki}=f_{kj}=1/2$$ should be false as some of the total radiation is going to itself.

So someone pls help Clearing My doubt...
 

Attachments

  • 1000006566.jpg
    1000006566.jpg
    26.1 KB · Views: 57
  • 1000006567.jpg
    1000006567.jpg
    14 KB · Views: 45
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
harsh_23 said:
Now my doubt is that radiation shouldn't only be going through the gap but also to the surrounding
I think you are supposed to take all the radiation as coming from the side facing the other plate, so it must either go to the other plate or to the gap.
harsh_23 said:
considering the gap be bit spherical (concave) then some radiation should go to itself
But then you cannot apply the reciprocity.
 
So is there a way by which radiation outside to surrounding can be blocked for the question to be valid?
 
harsh_23 said:
So is there a way by which radiation outside to surrounding can be blocked for the question to be valid?
Sorry, I do not understand your question. The question posed as homework in post #1 is valid.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top