Inverse Square Law: Total Power at Earth per Unit Area

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the inverse square law to determine the intensity of sunlight received at Earth per unit area. Participants are exploring the relationship between distance from the Sun and the intensity of sunlight, referencing the total radiated power of the Sun.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the need to find the Solar Radius and the distance from the Earth to the Sun. There are attempts to express the intensity at Earth in relation to the intensity at the Sun using proportionality. Questions arise about the units of power and the calculations involved in determining surface area and intensity.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, questioning assumptions about the values used and the relationships between them. Some guidance has been offered regarding the use of proportionality in equations, and there is a recognition of the need for accurate units in calculations.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted lack of specific values for the Solar Radius and the distance from the Sun to the Earth, which are crucial for the calculations. Participants are encouraged to look up these values to proceed with their analysis.

googlyeyes
Messages
17
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



The intensity (I) of sunlight (the received power per unit area) drops with distance (d) from the sun according to the inverse square law - i.e I2/I1 is proportional to (d1/d2)^2

What is the total power received at Earth (above the atmosphere) per unit of surface area?

P.S. The wavelength of peak emission from the surface = 4.99655x10^-7 m
AND the total radiated power per unit of surface area of the sun = 3.901x10^26


Homework Equations



Inverse square law

The Attempt at a Solution



Work out distance from Earth to sun and square it? I am really not sure how this formula works, I haven't used it before.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok, do you have the Solar Radius?
 
No it wasnt given
 
You need to look up Solar Radius and Earth-Sun distance for this one.
 
Can you think of some resource where you can look the solar radius up?
Do you know the distance from the Sun to the Earth?

total radiated power per unit of surface area of the sun = 3.901x10^26
... you left off the units: W/m^2 perhaps?

If this is I1 is the intensity at the radius of the Sun Rs, then what is the intensity at the radius of the Earth Re?
 
So the equation would look like this:

I2/3.901x10^26 is proportional to (Rs/Re)^2 ??
 
googlyeyes said:
So the equation would look like this:

I2/3.901x10^26 is proportional to (Rs/Re)^2 ??

Yes.
 
And can you treat the "proportional to" sign as an equal sign and just rearrange the equation?
 
Proportionality generally is not the same as equals but when you are dealing with ratios as in this case, any constants cancel out. So yes.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
  • #10
Simon Bridge said:
Can you think of some resource where you can look the solar radius up?
Do you know the distance from the Sun to the Earth?

the total radiated power per unit of surface area of the sun = 3.901x10^26

... you left off the units: W/m^2 perhaps?

If this is I1 is the intensity at the radius of the Sun Rs, then what is the intensity at the radius of the Earth Re?

The figure 3.901*10^26 watts represents the total power emitted from the surface of the sun, not per sq.m. Anything*10^26 is a truly astounding number.
 
  • #11
Oh so what units have I got it in? I just did the SA (4pi*r^2) multiplied by σT^4 to get the power
 
  • #12
You did SA (4pi*r^2) without knowing the radius of the Sun?
What did you find the SA of? Maybe it would help if you detailed your initial calculations?

Note:

If ##a \propto b## then ##a=kb## where k is the (unknown, in this case) constant of proportionality.
This is how you turn a proportional symbol into an equals sign.

then ##a_1 \propto b_1 \implies a_1=kb_1## (1) and ##a_2 \propto b_2\implies a_2=kb_2## (2)
... by the same logic. Notice the constant of proportionality is the same because it's the same relation.

then $$\frac{a_1=kb_1}{a_2=kb_2}\implies\frac{a_1}{a_2}=\frac{b_1}{b_2}$$
... because the constants divide out.

It's a very handy approach for getting rid of the bits of equations you don't know.
 
  • #13
I used 6.955x10^8 as the r but I am not sure where I got that from now?
The question also gives that "the surface area of the sun has an effective temperature of approx. 5800K"
and for the calculation to find the wavelength of peak emission i did:
(2.898x10^-3)/5800 = 4.9965x10^-7
 
  • #14
googlyeyes said:
I used 6.955x10^8 as the r but I am not sure where I got that from now?
It is good practice to always include the units with your numbers ... they are meaningless without.

695500km is the solar radius.

The question also gives that "the surface area of the sun has an effective temperature of approx. 5800K"
... which is where the stephan-Boltzmann's law comes in right? Modelling the Sun as a blackbody?

and for the calculation to find the wavelength of peak emission i did:
(2.898x10^-3)/5800 = 4.9965x10^-7

Wein's displacement law?
As well as putting the units in, you should also get into the habit of saying what your reasoning is when you do calculations, otherwise you are making people guess what you mean to do.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K