How Does Illuminance Change With Distance in Physics Experiments?

  • Thread starter Thread starter garet122
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between illuminance and distance in a physics lab experiment, highlighting that illuminance (E) decreases as distance (d) increases, demonstrating an inverse square relationship. The formula E = I/d^2 is introduced, indicating that illuminance is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the light source. The confusion arises regarding the use of d^2 instead of d in the equation, with an explanation provided about how light spreads uniformly over a spherical surface. The surface area of the sphere is mentioned as a key factor in understanding why the equation involves the square of the distance. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the mathematical relationship between illuminance and distance in physics experiments.
garet122
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hello, We had a lab in physics about the relationship between illuminance and distance. Our teacher gave use data so we make a graph of them. E is the illuminance in Lux and d is the distance in cm. (d,E) (50cm, 94 lux) (60cm, 64 lux) (70 cm, 49 lux) (80cm, 40 lux) (90 cm, 32 lux) (100cm, 26 lux)
It the graph, when I connect the points it give me an inverse proportion. My objective is to find an equation.


What I first tried is to find an equation directly from this graph but after searching on the internet I found this formula : E=I/d^2 and this explanation : intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source. I do not understand, in my graph d is my abscissa not d^2 . I do not understand how we can use d^2 instead of d.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you familiar with the equation for a straight line? Compare the standard equation for a straight line...

y = mx + c

with your equation which I have rewritten slightly..

E = I(1/d2) + 0

Then replot your data suitably modified so you get a straight line. Come back if you get stuck.

PS: It's not d2 you use.
 
CWatters said:
Are you familiar with the equation for a straight line? Compare the standard equation for a straight line...

y = mx + c

with your equation which I have rewritten slightly..

E = I(1/d2) + 0

Then replot your data suitably modified so you get a straight line. Come back if you get stuck.

PS: It's not d2 you use.


E = I(1/d2) + 0


my question why is the equation not E=I(1/d)

where do the 2 come from
 
Imagine a point source of light surrounded by a spherical glass surface of radius d. The light from the source spreads out uniformly in all directions and passes through the sphere. The "density" of the light (aka illuminance) passing through the glass will be...

The total amount of light emitted / Surface area of the sphere

In other words the bigger the sphere the less light will pass through each square meter.

What is the equation for the surface area of a sphere?
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top