What's wrong with argument against cos?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ecklstn36
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Argument Cos
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the calculation of solar energy received by the Earth, specifically questioning the use of the cosine factor in the formula E = e-max * cos(@) * area. The argument against using cosine suggests that the rate of change of sunlight at sunrise and sunset is not intuitively aligned with the cosine function, proposing instead a cosine squared relationship. However, it is clarified that the cosine term arises from the mathematical definition of flux, which requires the dot product of vectors, inherently involving cosine. The rotation of the Earth does not affect this calculation, as the cosine factor is essential for accurately determining the energy flux through a surface area. Understanding the nature of flux is crucial to justifying the use of the cosine term in energy calculations.
ecklstn36
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I am trying to compute the amount of energy received by the Earth from the sun, by integrating over the Earth's surface. I keep reading that the formula should be:

E = e-max * cos @ * area

e-max is the solar insolation,
@ is the angle between the sun and the perpendicular to the land, @=0 at noon (at equator)

It's the cosine that I am having trouble with. What is wrong about the following argument against a factor of cosine for the received energy?

Cosine changes fastest at cos @ = 0, and slowest at cos @ = 1. That means that at sunrise(SR) and sunset(SS), the amount of sun that the land gets is changing most rapidly, and at noon(N) least rapidly. When I picture a mental image of the Earth rotating about its axis, it seems to me that the change in amount of sun at SR, SS, and N should be the same, should all be at a minimum, and at +/- 45 deg should be at a maximum.

That would correspond to cos^2, not cos.

It also seems that the factor at +/- 45 should be half of the maximum, by symmetry. A factor of cosine means half of e-max occurs at @=60, which seems anti-intuitive.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure your argument; however, the cosine term there isn't necessarily for rotation. The cosine term is just there because that's how fluxes work. If you want to compute the flux of a vector field through an area, you need to take the dot product of the vector with the area vector (defined to be the vector with length equal to the area and perpendicular to the area).

The definition of dot products means that there is a cosine term (and not a cosine squared term).
 
The rotation is irrelevant to the argument. I might as well imagine the Earth to be standing still in this problem.

If you didn't know that calculating fluxes required a cosine term, if you didn't know this was a flux in the first place, how would you argue for a cosine term when trying to calculate the incoming energy for a piece of the Earth's surface? ie if you said

E = e-max * some factor * area

e-max is the solar insolation

how would you argue that "some factor" should be cosine?

Thanks again.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top