V.

Data
Table 1. Summary of Inverse Square Law Data

True
Distance
(mm)
368
418
468
518
568
618
668
718

1/D2
(m-2)
7.384216
5.723312
4.56571
3.726838
3.099583
2.618322
2.241027
1.939774

Log D
-0.43415
-0.37882
-0.32975
-0.28567
-0.24565
-0.20901
-0.17522
-0.14388

Increasing Distance
Decreasing Distance
Corrected
Corrected
Radiometer
Radiometer
Reading,
Reading
(W/m2)
Log Q
(W/m2)
Log Q
31467.91 4.497868
33820.98 4.529186
28228.9 4.450694
29264.41
4.46634
25788.31 4.411423
27249.08 4.435352
24457.66 4.388415
25246.62 4.402203
22710.93 4.356235
23945.22 4.379219
22264.93 4.347621
23334.42 4.367997
22628.75 4.354661
22685.46 4.355748
21923.68 4.340913
21923.68 4.340913

Table 2. Summary of Data for Stefan Boltzmann Law

200mm
Ts
(C)
qb*
R
qb
85 492.26 184 2036.88
80 441.31 168 1859.76
75 392.48 152 1682.64
70 345.70 133 1472.31
65 300.93 119 1317.33
60 258.11 103 1140.21
55 217.17
87
963.09
50 178.06
73
808.11
45 140.72
59
653.13
40 105.11
45
498.15
35
71.16
32
354.24
30
38.82
20
221.40
*qb* : qb = (Ts4 Ta4) (W/m2)
*qb : qb = 11.07*R (W/m2)

300mm
%
Diff.
122.15
123.29
124.35
123.94
125.62
126.17
126.40
127.78
129.09
130.31
133.09
140.33

R
68
61
55
48
42
38
34
30
26
20
18
11

qb
752.76
675.27
608.85
531.36
464.94
420.66
376.38
332.10
287.82
221.40
199.26
121.77

400mm

%
Diff.
41.85
41.91
43.22
42.34
42.83
47.90
53.65
60.39
68.65
71.24
94.75
103.30

R
38
36
33
30
28
25
23
20
19
16
14
12

qb
420.66
398.52
365.31
332.10
309.96
276.75
254.61
221.40
210.33
177.12
154.98
132.84

%
Diff.
15.69
10.19
7.17
4.01
2.96
6.97
15.87
21.70
39.66
51.03
74.14
109.54

Table 3 (a-c). Summary of Determination of Emissivity

Table 3.a Emissivity of Matte Black Plate

Ts (C)

Matte Black Plate

R
(W/m2)
qb

85
75
65
55

245
197
153
110

862.155
1.74589
693.243 1.759902
538.407 1.781339
387.09 1.772649

45
35

70
36

Average 0.487492

246.33 1.736974
126.684 1.755814
Average 1.758761

Table 3.c. Emissivity of Silver Anodized

Plate

Table 3.b. Emissivity of Polished Plate

Polished Plate
R
(W/m2)
qb
70
246.33
53 186.507
41 144.279
29 102.051
19
66.861
11
38.709

Ts (C)
85
75
65
55
45
35

Silver Anodized Plate

R
Ts ( C) (W/m2)
qb

85
259 911.421 1.845655
75
212 746.028 1.893905
65
160
563.04 1.862838
55
113 397.647 1.820994
45
70
246.33 1.736974
35
37 130.203 1.804587
Average 1.827492

0.498826
0.473476
0.477352
0.467335
0.471464
0.536499

VI. Results and Analysis

Table 1 shows the summary of the data used to plot the logarithm of Q with the
Logarithm of D and Q with the Inverse Square of the Distance. Figure 1 shows that the plot of
Log Q VS Log D exhibits a linear relationship. In addition, hysteresis is present because of the
precision of the data. Theoretically, the line of the graph should be -2; however, as seen in the
figure, the slopes of the lines have big offsets to the theoretical value. This might be a result of
inevitable factors such as the presence of other source of heat from light. Despite this, it is
notable that individually, the data shows an inverse square relationship.
Figure 1. Plot of the Logarithm of Q with the Logarithm of D
4.6

Log Q VS Log D

Increasing
Distance

4.55

Log Q

y = -0.6184x + 4.2394
R = 0.9603

4.5
Decreasing
Distance

4.45
4.4

Linear
(Increasing
Distance)

4.35

y = -0.536x + 4.2459
R = 0.923

4.3
4.25

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3
Log D

-0.2

-0.1

Linear
(Decreasing
Distance)

Figure 2, on the other hand, shows the plot of Q with the inverse square distance. As
expected, the plot shows a linear characteristic. This proves that the relationship holds true.
However, theoretically, the y-intercept must be equal to 0. However, when graphed with yintercept set to 0, the best fit line does not really show the inverse square relationship.
Seemingly, the y-intercept here represents a fictitious entity.
Figure 2. Plot of Q with 1/D2
36000

Q VS D-2

34000

Increasing
Distance

Q, W/m2

32000
y = 2124.6x + 17621
R = 0.9926

30000

Decresing
Distance

28000
26000

y = 1787.3x + 17941
R = 0.9792

24000
22000
20000
0

4
D-2, /mm2

Linear
(Increasing
Distance)
Linear
(Decresing
Distance)

Table 2 shows the validity of Stefan Boltzmann Law Equation. Based from the data, the
equation is not very valid because of the large percentage difference. It is notable however that
with the increase in distance from the heating medium, a lower percentage difference is
observed. Figure 3 shows the plot of radiation reading with the 4th power of the absolute
temperature. A linear behaviour is observed for all different distances. Theoretically, the slopes
of these lines should be equal to the Boltzmann constant; however, as observed the shorter the
distance from the heating medium, a bigger offset is seen. In the case of the 400mm distance, a
lower percentage difference is seen with the slope and Boltzmann constant. Possible error that
contributed to this is the presence of light from the outside.
Figure 3. Plot of Radiation Reading with the 4th Power of the Absolute Temperature.

2500.00

Qb VS T4

Qb, W/m2

2000.00
1500.00
1000.00

y = 2E-07x - 1695.7
R = 0.9993

200 mm
300 mm

y = 8E-08x - 496.81
R = 0.9958

Linear (200 mm)

Linear (300 mm)

500.00
0.00
8E+09

400 mm

y = 4E-08x - 170.79
R = 0.9978
1.3E+10

Linear (400 mm)

1.8E+10

Absolute Temperature, K4

Table 3 shows the emissivity obtained from different types of plates. As seen some of
the emissivity shows a value of greater than 1. Obviously, these values are not permissible
since the range of emissivity is from 0 to 1 where 1 is considered as a black body and those
less than 1 are considered gray bodies. Again errors that might have contributed to this include
the presence of outside source of light. It is notable however that the polished plate has an
emissivity of 0.54. Though, this value is within the range of the values of emissivity, it is rather
high for a polished plate. Lastly, the silver anodized plate shows an emissivity of 1.83. This
value is once again non-permissible because of the range of the emissivity values. Though the
data seems erroneous, a prcised data is observed. This shows that error is due to external
factors that were not accounted for during the experiment. Lastly, temperature does not have
seemed to have an effect to the emissivity of the material.