Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,793   Posts: 1,671,617   Online: 909
      
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 71
  1. #21
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,899
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by fretlessdavis View Post
    Same thing with everything I did in acoustics. SPL is standardized at being measured at 1m for speakers and such... makes up for the errors in not having sound coming from a point source...
    SPL can be measured at any distance. It's usually one metre and one watt to work out speaker efficiency.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom1956 View Post
    Stone, you're wrong on 2 counts: firstly politicians do it every day when they make a speech. Secondly, when you walk up to the Sun and put your light meter on the surface and take a reading. THAT is point zero. You're not interested in digging through 433 thousand miles of plasma with a shovel to get the "true" reading.
    That meter (if it does t melt) can hover just above the surface but will never be INSIDE the light point, it's impossible, can't occupy the same space, just making quarters and quarters closer for infinity...

  3. #23
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,553
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    My dad is a real honest to god physicist... I'll ask him tomorrow...
    Stone, ask your dad how the concept of "limits" fits into the ISL.

    ———————…

    Approaching
    Sometimes you can't work something out directly ... but you can see what it should be as you get closer and closer!
    Let's use this function as an example:


    (x2-1)/(x-1)


    And let's work it out for x=1:


    (12-1)/(1-1) = (1-1)/(1-1) = 0/0


    Now 0/0 is a difficulty! We don't really know the value of 0/0, so we need another way of answering this.


    So instead of trying to work it out for x=1 let's try approaching it closer and closer:


    x (x2-1)/(x-1)
    0.5 1.50000
    0.9 1.90000
    0.99 1.99000
    0.999 1.99900
    0.9999 1.99990
    0.99999 1.99999
    ... ...
    Now we can see that as x gets close to 1, then (x2-1)/(x-1) gets close to 2


    We are now faced with an interesting situation:


    When x=1 we don't know the answer (it is indeterminate)
    But we can see that it is going to be 2
    We want to give the answer "2" but can't, so instead mathematicians say exactly what is going on by using the special word "limit"


    The limit of (x2-1)/(x-1) as x approaches 1 is 2


    So it is a special way of saying, "ignoring what happens when you get there, but as you get closer and closer the answer gets closer and closer to 2"
    Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand

  4. #24
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Curt View Post
    So it is a special way of saying, "ignoring what happens when you get there, but as you get closer and closer the answer gets closer and closer to 2"
    Actually, the answer to everything is 42.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Actually, the answer to everything is 42.
    +1

  6. #26
    Truzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    Stone:

    Take some university physics courses and you will find that what you say here isn't actually true.

    Or for that matter, watch a few Star Trek episodes .
    Of the Original Series... the subsequent series played kind of loose with science (worse than the original, I should say).
    Truzi

  7. #27
    fretlessdavis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Southern AZ
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    314
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    SPL can be measured at any distance. It's usually one metre and one watt to work out speaker efficiency.


    Steve.
    Sound waves propogate much like light does. True it can be measured at any distance, like light can, but for larger sources, 1m is pretty standardized at any power level to check SPL. A speaker is a larger source, so getting closer and closer you're not getting the full output of the speaker-- just like light.
    New-ish convert to film.
    Pentax MX for 35mm
    Bronica ETRS for 645

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228
    He didn't really give a detailed answer... This was his reply....

    There is always a physical limitation to a light source, which itself has an associated radius. So in practice this mathematical situation never arises. But theoretically, yes.


    "Stone wrote:
    So, on the photo forum, this question arose....

    This is confusing me

    according to the inverse square lawB=I/d^2,theIllumination from a light sourcequadruples every time the distance from subject to light source is cut in half.Inconsequence doesn't that mean that the light source approaches infinite intensitywhen the distance to the light source approaches '0'?Hoew can this be?is there a flaw in the inverse square lawor is it limited to certain conditions? "

  9. #29
    fretlessdavis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Southern AZ
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    314
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    He didn't really give a detailed answer... This was his reply....

    There is always a physical limitation to a light source, which itself has an associated radius. So in practice this mathematical situation never arises. But theoretically, yes.


    "Stone wrote:
    So, on the photo forum, this question arose....

    This is confusing me

    according to the inverse square lawB=I/d^2,theIllumination from a light sourcequadruples every time the distance from subject to light source is cut in half.Inconsequence doesn't that mean that the light source approaches infinite intensitywhen the distance to the light source approaches '0'?Hoew can this be?is there a flaw in the inverse square lawor is it limited to certain conditions? "
    It's limited by the real world application of the math.

    In Physics, theories and laws seem to be based off of perfect conditions. There is no true point light source possible-- as it would occupy no space. As mentioned before, other effects start happening with different light sources as you get really close. There is no problem with the law, but perfect conditions for it are never attained in real life.

    When learning physics, early on you learn to 'deal with it', later on you learn why, and even later on, you basically throw everything out of the window and start fresh. At least that's how my education was... from basic mechanics, electricity, light, etc, then up through Quantum Mechanics. I never went further than with light and optics than a good engineer would, though.

    The law works best for comparing relative distances as it falls off, but there's too much difference in light sources as you get really close to them, not to mention your measuring area would have to be so tiny, it would have little real world application.
    New-ish convert to film.
    Pentax MX for 35mm
    Bronica ETRS for 645

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Plymouth, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    348
    Couple of things I didn't see mentioned although I may have missed them, are that it is true for all electromagnetic waves be they IR, UV, Sound, Visible Light, Gamma and X-Rays and that it is only true in an open space, if you are in a room or a place where there can be reflected waves then the results will be muddied and will likely not follow the inverse square law.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin