Validate the Stefan Boltzmann equation

AI Thread Summary
To validate the Stefan Boltzmann equation at a temperature of 109°C with an emissivity of 0.81, the correct approach involves calculating the correction factor and the measured irradiance. The initial calculation mistakenly assumed emissivity of 1 for the blackbody, leading to confusion about the correction factor's application. The measured irradiance should be adjusted by subtracting the correction factor, as the thermopile measures 0 W/m² at 27°C. Ultimately, the measured irradiance must reflect a decrease from the actual value due to the correction factor. Understanding these adjustments is crucial for accurate validation of the equation.
tomadevil
Messages
11
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


You are performing an experiment to validate the Stefan Boltzmann equation. What irradiance would you measure at a temperature of 109C? The emissivity of your thermal heat source is 0.81 and your thermopile measures 0 W/m2 at 27 C when directed towards a blackbody. Submit your answer in units of W/m2, do not include the units in your answer.

Answer tolerance is +/- 0.2%.

Homework Equations


E=σeT^4

3. The Attempt at a Solution

I presume I have to work out a correction factor like this:
Ec=081*5.67E-8*300^4=372 W/m2
Then calculate measured irradiance:
E=5.67E-8*382^4*1=1207
Then I have to add the correction factor Ec to E to get the measured irradiance (Em):
Em=Ec+E=1579 w/m2

Am I doing it right?

Thanks for your answers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello,

1. Why do you assume the emissivity to be 1 when the temperature is 382 K?
2. Why do you add (and not subtract) the correction factor? Just think that your zero is at 372 W/m2.
 
1. Ohh, I get it know. I used 1 because of the blackbody, but I know now that is irrelevant. :)
2.I added the correction factor because the thermopile should measure 0 at 0 Kelvin. Therefore, the measured irradiance is always less by 372 W/m2.
 
  • Like
Likes DoItForYourself
Exactly, the measured E must be less than the real by 372 W/m2. So, Emeasured=Ereal-Ecorrection.

Your equation implies that the measured E is bigger than the real E (by 372 W/m2).
 
Ohh, yes. I understand it know. Thank you! :-)
 
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 .
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...
Back
Top