Graphing Power vs Polarizer Angle using Intensity

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around graphing power versus polarizer angle using intensity measurements from an experiment involving a laser and polarizers. Participants are exploring how to derive transmitted power from recorded intensity values, which are measured in lux, and are questioning the relationship between intensity and power in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to understand how to calculate transmitted power from transmitted intensity and whether to consider the area of the polarizer in their calculations. There are discussions about the implications of negative intensity readings and the relationship between intensity and power, particularly in terms of proportionality.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants sharing data and clarifying their understanding of the relationships between intensity, power, and polarizer angles. Some participants have provided guidance on how to approach the graphing of power versus polarizer angle, while others are still questioning the assumptions and definitions involved in their calculations.

Contextual Notes

There are constraints regarding the availability of certain measurements, such as the area of the polarizer and the maximum power of the laser, which are affecting the ability to graph power versus polarizer angle accurately. Participants are also addressing potential errors in their data collection and the definitions of the angles involved in the experiment.

  • #31
Oh wait, I think the OpenStax textbook just assumed an efficiency equal to 1.

Many thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I plotted your data. Normally, one assumes the x values are reliable, so curve fitting minimises the sum of squares of the errors in y, but your data looks very odd. The trough on the left is about 112° wide, then the crest is only 68° wide. It's as though there is some systematic error in the angle readings.
Alternatively, the high crest on the right is what's wrong. If we throw away the data from 120° to 170° then the curve looks respectable. Sketching in the gap created, the peak would only be about 130.

I assume you only did one run-through of the settings, which is a shame.

Anyway, I was able to verify my formulae.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016
  • #33
haruspex said:
I plotted your data. Normally, one assumes the x values are reliable, so curve fitting minimises the sum of squares of the errors in y, but your data looks very odd. The trough on the left is about 112° wide, then the crest is only 68° wide. It's as though there is some systematic error in the angle readings.
Alternatively, the high crest on the right is what's wrong. If we throw away the data from 120° to 170° then the curve looks respectable. Sketching in the gap created, the peak would only be about 130.

I assume you only did one run-through of the settings, which is a shame.

Anyway, I was able to verify my formulae.
Thank you for doing that @haruspex!

Many thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
7K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K