4 ms·
Shouldn't the falloff be proportional to 1/r^2, instead of 1/r^3?
by adwn 12y ago
Shouldn't the falloff be proportional to 1/r^2, instead of 1/r^3?
- jarman 12y ago1/r^3 = 1/r^2 (falloff in vacuum) * 1/r (light absorption by air)
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- dekhn 12y agopoint sphere radiating a point at distance r. I'm not doing the calculation the way a physicist would, or rather, I'm calculating the amount of EMF falling on a point, not the energy of the full surface. The reason being, a person standing and looking at something cares how much illumination falls on the destination point, not the total illumination of the scene.
- dekhn 12y agoAh, duh. Had to go back and look up some basic geometry. So, surface of sphere is proportional to r2. At distance r, with 1/r absorption, the illumination of a spot on a sphere at distance r would fall off as 1/r3. But I wasn't including absorption, so my original claim of 1/r3 due to spherical emission was wrong.