Solving Photon Energy with Equations: Am I Right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter meher4real
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Photon
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the energy of photons and whether that energy is sufficient to ignite a piece of paper. The initial calculation of photon energy at a wavelength of 820 nm yielded 1.51 eV, but confusion arose regarding the application of equations related to photon interactions and absorption coefficients. The user attempted to calculate the number of absorbed photons and the resulting energy but struggled with unit conversions and the relevance of specific heat in determining if the heat generated could ignite the paper. Clarification was provided on the need to calculate the temperature change of the paper based on absorbed energy, emphasizing that simply absorbing energy is not enough for ignition. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the relationship between absorbed energy, temperature change, and ignition conditions.
  • #31
I can't read that. There are too many erasures. Can you type it up, please?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
kuruman said:
I can't read that. There are too many erasures. Can you type it up, please?
- N(inter)=5.6x10^18 x 180 x (1-e^(-0.32x0.1x10^-3)) = 1.03x10^13 photons
- E(abs) = N(inter)xE(photon)
= 2.50 x 10^-6 J
- Energy required to heat the paper :
Q=m x Cp x T = 80x10^-3kg x 1.34 J/kg x 233° = 24.97 J
- Number of photons required :
24.97/2.42x10^-19 J = 1.032x10^20 photons
 
  • #33
meher4real said:
- N(inter)=5.6x10^18 x 180 x (1-e^(-0.32x0.1x10^-3)) = 1.03x10^13 photons
This number is too low by several orders of magnitude. The left-hand side is OK, the right-hand side is not. You must have made a mistake somewhere.
 
  • Like
Likes meher4real
  • #34
kuruman said:
This number is too low by several orders of magnitude. The left-hand side is OK, the right-hand side is not. You must have made a mistake somewhere.
i used the thickness of the paper which is 0.1 mm ?! you said that is 1 mm can you explain why ?
 
  • #35
You used the correct thickness of the paper 0.1 mm as given by the problem. What I am saying is that 5.6x10^18 x 180 x (1-e^(-0.32x0.1x10^-3)) is NOT 1.03x10^13. You need to redo this calculation correctly.
 
  • Like
Likes meher4real
  • #36
kuruman said:
You used the correct thickness of the paper 0.1 mm as given by the problem. What I am saying is that 5.6x10^18 x 180 x (1-e^(-0.32x0.1x10^-3)) is NOT 1.03x10^13. You need to redo this calculation correctly.
The rest is ok ?
 
  • #37
meher4real said:
The rest is ok ?
No, the rest is not Ok. Cut a piece of paper into a square of side 1 cm. Do you really believe it weighs 80 grams or 80x10^-3kg?
 
  • #38
kuruman said:
No, the rest is not Ok. Cut a piece of paper into a square of side 1 cm. Do you really believe it weighs 80 grams or 80x10^-3kg?
g to kg isn't 10^-3 ?
kuruman said:
You used the correct thickness of the paper 0.1 mm as given by the problem. What I am saying is that 5.6x10^18 x 180 x (1-e^(-0.32x0.1x10^-3)) is NOT 1.03x10^13. You need to redo this calculation correctly.
- N(inter)=5.6x10^18 x 180 x (1-e^(-(0.32x0.1x10^-3)) = 3.23x10^16 photons
- E(abs) = N(inter)xE(photon)
= 7.8 x 10^-3 J
 
Last edited:
  • #39
meher4real said:
g to kg isn't 10^-3 ?

- N(inter)=5.6x10^18 x 180 x (1-e^(-(0.32x0.1x10^-3)) = 3.23x10^16 photons
- E(abs) = N(inter)xE(photon)
= 7.8 x 10^-3 J
I agree with those numbers. Now what?
 
  • Like
Likes meher4real
  • #40
kuruman said:
I agree with those numbers. Now what?
What's wrong with weight 80x10^-3kg ?
 
  • #41
A standard, letter-sized 8.5"×11", sheet of paper weighs 4 to 5 grams. Do you really believe that if you cut a square piece 1 cm on the side out of that sheet, it will weigh 80 grams? :rolleyes:
 
  • #42
kuruman said:
A standard, letter-sized 8.5"×11", sheet of paper weighs 4 to 5 grams. Do you really believe that if you cut a square piece 1 cm on the side out of that sheet, it will weigh 80 grams? :rolleyes:
weight x 1 cm^2 ?
 
  • #43
meher4real said:
weight x 1 cm^2 ?
The whole sheet of paper is 4 grams. If you cut a piece of that paper any size, any shape, can it weigh 20 times as much as the entire sheet? Think!
 
  • #44
kuruman said:
The whole sheet of paper is 4 grams. If you cut a piece of that paper any size, any shape, can it weigh 20 times as much as the entire sheet? Think!
huh you're right, weight/1cm^2
 
  • #45
So what is the mass of 1 cm2 of paper? Read carefully and understand what you are given.
 
  • #46
kuruman said:
So what is the mass of 1 cm2 of paper? Read carefully and understand what you are given.
I found Energy required to heat paper = 0.40 J
number of photons required = 1.612x10^18 photons
 
  • #47
meher4real said:
I found Energy required to heat paper = 0.40 J
number of photons required = 1.612x10^18 photons
I didn't ask you what energy is required to heat the paper and I didn't ask you for the number of photons required. I asked you to find the correct mass of the paper that is heated up. You have repeatedly avoided answering my questions which I am only asking to guide your thinking. Your refusal to answer them indicates to me that you reject my help. If that's the case, I will stop helping you.
 
  • #48
kuruman said:
I didn't ask you what energy is required to heat the paper and I didn't ask you for the number of photons required. I asked you to find the correct mass of the paper that is heated up. You have repeatedly avoided answering my questions which I am only asking to guide your thinking. Your refusal to answer them indicates to me that you reject my help. If that's the case, I will stop helping you.
Not at all !
I really appreciate your time and efforts to help me out with the problem, can't thank you enough, i was literally lost but It's a matter of time for me because your process takes too long to find the solution.
As i said before I'm on rush and I'm working on the last problem rn.
 
  • #49
OK, then you set the pace but we cannot move forward unless you answer my questions. This process is not mine. It is how we proceed in this forum. If you focus on just getting the answer without paying attention to the process that leads you to it, it is unlikely that you will understand what you're doing and why. I can end this 49 posting thread by giving you the complete solution, but I will not do it for two reasons: (a) it is against forum rules and (b) I don't believe it will benefit you if I do.
 
  • Like
Likes Steve4Physics and hutchphd

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
25
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K