What's wrong with argument against cos?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ecklstn36
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Argument Cos
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the integration of solar energy received by the Earth, specifically addressing the use of the cosine function in the formula E = e-max * cos(@) * area. The user questions the validity of using cosine, arguing that the rate of change of sunlight at sunrise and sunset is more rapid than at noon, suggesting a potential need for a cosine squared factor instead. However, it is established that the cosine term is essential for calculating fluxes, as it arises from the dot product of the solar vector field and the area vector, making the rotation of the Earth irrelevant to the argument.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of solar insolation (e-max)
  • Knowledge of vector calculus, specifically dot products
  • Familiarity with the concept of flux in physics
  • Basic trigonometry, particularly the properties of the cosine function
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the mathematical principles of vector calculus and dot products
  • Research the physics of solar energy flux and its calculations
  • Explore the implications of trigonometric functions in energy calculations
  • Examine case studies on solar energy distribution across different latitudes
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, environmental scientists, and engineers involved in solar energy research and applications, as well as students studying energy flux and vector calculus.

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.
 
Science 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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
12K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
8K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
19K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
17K