Radiation - finding emissivity of a sphere

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the emissivity of a sphere using radiation principles. The original poster attempts to apply the Stefan-Boltzmann law to determine the emissivity based on net radiation and surface area, while also considering the influence of surrounding air temperature.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the relationship between the sphere's temperature, the surrounding air temperature, and the concept of emissivity. There are attempts to clarify whether to subtract or add the radiation absorbed from the surrounding air based on its temperature relative to the sphere.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the assumptions made about the surrounding air acting as a black body and the implications of its temperature on the calculations. There is ongoing exploration of how these factors influence the net radiation and emissivity calculation.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of the question setter's expectations regarding the treatment of surrounding air and its properties, which raises questions about the validity of those assumptions in practical scenarios.

JoeyBob
Messages
256
Reaction score
29
Homework Statement
see attached
Relevant Equations
dQ/dt = Ae(5.67*10^-8)*T^4
So using the above equation, e=dQ/dt / (A*5.67E-8*303.8^4)

The surface area of a sphere is 4(pi)r^2 and I get 136.8478 m^2. dQ/dt would be the net radiation (I think? Its in the correct units), 1074W.

Plugging everything in I get 0.01625, but the answer is 0.0524.

Now as I was writing this I figured out how to do it by trial and error but am a bit confused. So apparently the surrounding air is decreasing the net radiation? Is that because its of a lower temperature? So if the air was hotter would I add it instead of subtracting it? Below is the equation I used to solve.

dQ/dt = SA * constant * e * (T of sphere) ^4 - SA * constant * e * (T of air) ^4
 

Attachments

  • question.PNG
    question.PNG
    12.7 KB · Views: 167
Physics news on Phys.org
The question setter seems to expect you to treat the surrounding air as a black body, so subtract the radiation the sphere absorbs from that. The fraction it absorbs will be governed by the same e value.
But it's nonsense. It takes a pretty thick layer of air to radiate much at all, and it certainly is not a black body (fortunately). Even outdoors, most of the received radiation would be from other solid bodies, such as the ground.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JoeyBob
haruspex said:
The question setter seems to expect you to treat the surrounding air as a black body, so subtract the radiation the sphere absorbs from that. The fraction it absorbs will be governed by the same e value.
But it's nonsense. It takes a pretty thick layer of air to radiate much at all, and it certainly is not a black body (fortunately). Even outdoors, most of the received radiation would be from other solid bodies, such as the ground.
Am I understanding correctly that I subtract the absorbed radiation because its of a lower temperature? In other words, would I add it instead if the surrounding black body had a higher temperature than the sphere?
 
JoeyBob said:
Am I understanding correctly that I subtract the absorbed radiation because its of a lower temperature? In other words, would I add it instead if the surrounding black body had a higher temperature than the sphere?
No, you are told the net radiation from the sphere, so that's radiation out minus radiation in. And 'in' should only be what is absorbed, so depends on e.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JoeyBob

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
993
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K