**@@The "Inverse Square Law" Double The Distance = 1/4 the DOSE!@@**


  • Ok guys I formally worked with radiation for a living. We used a formula called the Inverse Square Law to determine our doses of radiation at a given distance. The law also works with light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation. Here is an article pulled from the web with refrences. I know wikipedia isn't the best resource but this is verified and explained pretty well. So in my words if you double the distance of your light wether it be from 1 to 2 inches or 4 to 8 feet you will receive 1/4 or 25% of the Light intensity you received at the original distance. On the other hand the opposite is also true. If you cut the distance in half you will quadruple the Light intensity from the original location. Its a significant loss when your moving your lights. This has always fascinated me and while I'm no genius this has always proved to be useful for me when setting up my lights and deciding on distances. Well I hope this helps some people. Scroll down to see the full article. This is just my dummed down summary, it took me about 6 months to understand the Inverse Square Law.


    Light and other electromagnetic radiation

    The intensity (or illuminance or irradiance) of light or other linear waves radiating from apoint source (energy per unit of area perpendicular to the source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source; so an object (of the same size) twice as far away, receives only one-quarter the energy (in the same time period).
    More generally, the irradiance, i.e., the intensity (or power per unit area in the direction ofpropagation), of a spherical wavefront varies inversely with the square of the distance from the source (assuming there are no losses caused by absorption or scattering).
    For example, the intensity of radiation from the Sun is 9126 watts per square meter at the distance of Mercury (0.387 AU); but only 1367 watts per square meter at the distance ofEarth (1 AU)—an approximate threefold increase in distance results in an approximate ninefold decrease in intensity of radiation.
    In photography and theatrical lighting, the inverse-square law is used to determine the "fall off" or the difference in illumination on a subject as it moves closer to or further from the light source. For quick approximations, it is enough to remember that doubling the distance reduces illumination to one quarter;[SUP][4][/SUP] or similarly, to halve the illumination increase the distance by a factor of 1.4 (the square root of 2), and to double illumination, reduce the distance to 0.7 (square root of 1/2). When the illuminant is not a point source, the inverse square rule is often still a useful approximation; when the size of the light source is less than one-fifth of the distance to the subject, the calculation error is less than 1%.[SUP][5][/SUP]
    The fractional reduction in electromagnetic fluence (Φ) for indirectly ionizing radiation with increasing distance from a point source can be calculated using the inverse-square law. Since emissions from a point source have radial directions, they intercept at a perpendicular incidence. The area of such a shell is
    wherer is the radial distance from the center. The law is particularly important in diagnostic radiography andradiotherapy treatment planning, though this proportionality does not hold in practical situations unless source dimensions are much smaller than the distance.
    References

    This article incorporates public domain material from the General Services Administration document "Federal Standard 1037C".
    • ^ Hooke's gravitation was also not yet universal, though it approached universality more closely than previous hypotheses: See page 239 in Curtis Wilson (1989), "The Newtonian achievement in astronomy", ch.13 (pages 233–274) in "Planetary astronomy from the Renaissance to the rise of astrophysics: 2A: Tycho Brahe to Newton", CUP 1989.
    • ^ Newton acknowledged Wren, Hooke and Halley in this connection in the Scholium to Proposition 4 in Book 1 (in all editions): See for example the 1729 English translation of the 'Principia', at page 66.
    • ^ Williams, Faller, Hill, E.; Faller, J.; Hill, H. (1971), "New Experimental Test of Coulomb's Law: A Laboratory Upper Limit on the Photon Rest Mass", Physical Review Letters 26 (12): 721–724, Bibcode:1971PhRvL..26..721W,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.26.721
    • ^ Millerson,G. (1991) Lighting for Film and Television - 3rd Edition p.27
    • ^ Ryer,A. (1997) "The Light Measurement Handbook", ISBN 0-9658356-9-3 p.26
    • ^ Inverse-Square law for sound




 

SCARHOLE

Well-Known Member
Cool your one of those science guys!
I have a question.
Does this apply to mirrors specular reflection?
For instance, a signal mirror can be seen for miles...
 
Nooooooo LOL sorry man but im no science genius or anything. This just happens to be a bit of useful info I picked up working around radiation. I think that would all depend on the Angle. I think a mirror would be one of the best things for specular reflection but as good as it is I dont know if theres such a thing as a "perfect" mirror.I think you would still loose some of the intensity but does the Inverse Square Law apply here....... This I do not know.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Cool your one of those science guys!
I have a question.
Does this apply to mirrors specular reflection?
For instance, a signal mirror can be seen for miles...
The light reflected in a mirror has already diminished according to the inverse square law and you would treat the reflection as a virtual point source the same distance behind the mirror as the actual source is from the mirror. IOW, if I use a mirror to reflect a flashlight beam that is 20m away from the mirror. you can treat it as if the light source is 20m behind the mirror already. If the signaling mirror is using the sun as a light source, the distance is negligible. A few miles compared to 93 million miles is not going to change the intensity by any measurable amount.
 
Top