Graphing Power vs Polarizer Angle using Intensity

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
32 replies · 3K views
Oh wait, I think the OpenStax textbook just assumed an efficiency equal to 1.

Many thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016
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!