Calculating the Number of Observable Life-Supporting Planets

Introduction

I like thinking about the possibility of habitable exoplanets. There are many interesting questions that people can ask about exoplanets. Here are a few questions that are interesting to think about:

  1. How many intelligent civilizations are present in our galaxy?
  2. How likely is it that a particular exoplanet could support life?
  3. How many exoplanets are out there with detectable signs of life?

Question 1 is addressed by the Drake equation, which the Wikipedia covers nicely. I wrote about Question 2 in this post. I will discuss in this post an interesting article in Astrobiology magazine that addresses Question 3. The spirit of this work follows a similar path to that of Drake.

Background

The best background information I could find is presented by Sara Seager, whose research is the subject of the Astrobiology article.

Analysis

From the given number of planets examined, the article presents an equation that allows one to estimate the number of planets around these stars that are:

  • rocky
  • lie in the habitable zone
  • support life
  • the life is generating detectable biosignature gases.

Equation 1 was presented in the article.

Eq. 1 \displaystyle N={{N}_{X}}\cdot {{F}_{Q}}\cdot {{F}_{HZ}}\cdot {{F}_{O}}\cdot {{F}_{L}}\cdot {{F}_{S}}

where

  • N is the number of planets that have amounts of biosignature gases that can be detected from Earth.
  • NX is the number of stars examined.
  • FQ is the fraction of stars that are quiet (i.e. provide a stable source of energy for a planet). In the Astrobiology article, Sara said that the fraction of stars that are quiet is 15%.
  • FHZ is the fraction of stars with rocky planets in the habitable zone.
  • FO is the fraction of rocky planets in the habitable zone that are observable.
  • FL is the fraction of rocky planets in the habitable zone that are observable and support life.
  • FS is the fraction of rocky planets in the habitable zone that are observable, support life, and the life generates observable biosignature gases.

Equation 1 is only an estimate because many of its terms (other than NX and FQ) are unknown. However, we are beginning to get estimates for all the fractions. Sara Seager has estimated the fractions present in Equation 1 and these numbers project that two inhabited planets will be found in the next decade. She also published an interesting article that discusses candidate biosignature gases -- oxygen and ozone figure prominently.

Let's try an example calculation to see the kind of parametric values that we would need to have to find 2 habitable planets in the next ten years. My quick analysis assumes that we are looking close to the Earth (i.e. within 100 light-years). Figure 1 shows my speculations.

Figure 1: My Wild Speculations on the Parameters for Equation 1.

Figure 1: My Wild Speculations on the Parameters for Equation 1.

Star Counting Article on Seager's work

Conclusion

I hope Sara Seager is correct about the odds being good on finding two inhabited planets in the next decade. I think this is the most interesting area in astronomy at the moment.

Posted in Astronomy | 4 Comments

Morning in Northern Minnesota

Fall is coming ... soon the leaves will start to change color. This is my favorite time of year here.

MorningAtTheCabin

The photographer is my neighbor, Joel Teigland.

Posted in Cabin, Personal | Comments Off on Morning in Northern Minnesota

A Management Generation Gap

A management mentor of mine (let's call him Gary) contacted me the other day. This contact brought back many memories. Most of what I know about managing people I learned from him. Gary is near retirement now and he is the best example I know of an "old school" engineering manager. Today, engineering teams are composed of both men and women. Back in Gary's day, women engineers were rare but starting to become more common. During my first days under Gary, I worked as a two-person team with a very good female engineer -- let's call her Sue.

Back in the 1980s, we were supporting US Navy contracts on three coasts: East, West, and Gulf. Since I live in Minnesota, I spent much of my time flying across the country. The work Gary assigned to me was absolutely miserable! I would get calls late in the evening and he would tell me things like, "there is a problem in Seattle -- get your ass out there first thing tomorrow morning." This happened all the time. I put 200,000 air miles on my first year -- most of the trips were 2 to 3 days. I was always traveling at night and going out to some dock in a nasty part of a large city. I would load electronic equipment onto a research vessel and then get my tail out to some ocean test site. Sue, on the other hand, always had the office duty. This entailed writing reports, giving presentations, and other office functions. Both Sue and I noticed the difference in how we were treated.

One day, Sue had reached her limit and she started to yell at Gary, "You treat Mark like dirt and me like a princess -- this has got to stop." Of course, I am no more than 10 feet away and I am thinking to myself, "You go girl! -- let him have it." Sue was fully capable of doing everything I did and I was darn tired -- I have a family with two kids myself. She beat him up for at least ten minutes and then walked away. Gary had little to say while she was berating to him. Sue clearly had made the point that she was not getting the kind of experience that I was getting and her career would suffer because of it.

After Sue left the area, Gary came over to me and said, "I am the father of daughters -- I could not live with myself if one of the women was hurt while working." To be fair to Gary, the job did have its hazards (I will relate those tales some other time). Gary stood up, looked at me with a big grin and said, "fortunately, I have no guilt about how I treat you" and he walked away. He never did change.

Today, things are very different. I work hard to ensure that every engineer receives equal treatment. I will agree with Gary on one thing. Being a parent has made a difference in how I manage -- particularly for young folks. I now understand the importance of mentoring and providing a role model. Gary was my mentor -- I hope I do as good a job with my young engineers as he did with me.

Posted in Management | Comments Off on A Management Generation Gap

Counting Nearby Stars

In my previous post, I casually stated that there are 61 stars in the region within 5 parsecs of the Sun -- at least according to the Gliese Catalog of Nearby Stars. I did not state where you could get that information for yourself. This short post describes how to figure this out for yourself. Here is my approach:

  • Get a copy of the Gliese Catalog here.
  • Look in the readme file here to understand the document format.
  • Many of these stars have common names that you can find .
  • Analyze the text file for the nearby stars in Excel like I did here.

My quick and dirty analysis shows that there are 61 stars within 5 parsecs of the Sun. I put together an Excel table but it is my second favorite software tool -- Mathcad is my favorite. I did add a couple of columns to the original Gliese columns: (1) a column of common names, and (2) the distances to the stars in light-years. The Gliese catalog just gives the milliarcseconds of parallax and I needed to convert the milliarcseconds to light-years using the following formula.

\displaystyle d[\text{light-years }\!\!]\!\!\text{ =}\frac{{{d}_{AU}}[\text{km }\!\!]\!\!\text{ }}{\frac{\pi \left[ \text{radians} \right]}{180{}^\circ }\cdot \frac{\theta [\text{milliarcseconds }\!\!]\!\!\text{ }\cdot \text{0}\text{.001}\left[ \frac{\text{arcseconds}}{\text{milliarcseconds}} \right]}{3600\left[ \frac{\text{arcseconds}}{\text{degree}} \right]}\cdot {{d}_{LightYear}}[\text{km }\!\!]\!\!\text{ }}

Here is the table I put together. I should note that new stars have been discovered since the Gliese table was put together (example). This is just a rough order of magnitude calculation (Fermi problem) and the results are good enough for what I am doing here.

Gliese Reference

Common Name

Distance (Light-Years)

Sun

Sun

0.00

GL551C

Proxima

4.24

GL559A

αCentauriA

4.37

GL559B

αCentauriB

4.37

GL699

Barnard's

6.00

GL406

Wolf359

7.82

GL411

Lalande21185

8.23

GL65A

BLCeti

8.59

GL65B

UVCeti

8.59

GL244A

SiriusA

8.60

GL244B

SiriusB

8.60

GL729

Ross154

9.59

GL905

Ross248

10.36

GL144

εEridani

10.70

GL447

Ross128

10.86

GL866A

Luyten789-6A

11.11

GL15A

Groombridge34A

11.30

GL15B

Groombridge34B

11.30

GL845A

εIndiA

11.32

GL820A

61CygniA

11.33

GL820B

61CygniB

11.33

GL725A

Struve2398A

11.43

GL725B

Struve2398B

11.43

GL71

tauCeti

11.44

GL280A

ProcyonA

11.44

GL280B

ProcyonB

11.44

GL887

Lacaille9352

11.50

GJ1111

DXCancri

11.86

GL54.1

YZCeti

12.23

GL273

Luyten's

12.37

GL825

Lacaille8760

12.65

GL191

Kapteyn's

12.66

GL860A

Kruger60A

12.98

GL860B

Kruger60B

12.98

GL628

Wolf1061

13.37

GL234A

Ross614A

13.51

GL234B

Ross614B

13.51

GJ1061

L372-58

14.04

GL473A

Wolf424A

14.09

GL473B

Wolf424B

14.09

GL35

VanMaanen's

14.16

NN3522

Gliese3522

14.60

GL83.1

TZAri

14.61

NN3618

Luyten143-23

14.68

GL1

Gliese1

14.75

NN3622

Gliese3622

14.80

GL674

Gliese674

14.89

GL440

Gliese440

14.97

GL832

Gliese832

15.21

GL380

Groombridge1618

15.34

GJ1002

Gleise1002

15.37

GL687

Gliese687

15.38

GJ1245A

Gliese1245A

15.43

GJ1245B

Gliese1245B

15.43

GL682

Gliese682

15.46

GL876

Gliese876

15.48

GL166A

40EridaniA

15.79

GL166B

40EridaniB

15.79

GL166C

40EridaniC

15.79

GL388

ADLeo

16.04

GL768

Altair

16.27

Posted in Astronomy | Comments Off on Counting Nearby Stars

Radio Communication Between the Stars

Introduction

A phone call from a cancer epidemiologist a few months ago got me thinking radio communication over long distance. This researcher was a sharp guy who immediately saw the dynamic range issues associated with cell tower communication -- the issues are even worse for space communication.

I have always had a keen interest in radio communication. Two-way radios, for example, have so many unique advantages as they can be used where mobile phone reception is not reliable and they can also be used to ensure consistent and secure lines of communication between construction site workers and even the military. I know that you can find 2 way radios for sale in NYC, NJ & PA and many other states too, so, if you are looking for a walkie talkie, be sure to do plenty of research first to find the right one for you.

I recalled that I had archived some interesting paper articles years ago in my paper files (of course, indexed by an Access database I also wrote years ago). In these files I found an interesting Scientific American article on the difficulties involved with radio communication between the stars -- the article was written by a SETI researcher. There is "mathematical gold" to be mined in this article. This post just reviews the mathematics in this article. Let's dig in ...

Background

The article addresses three interesting types of problems:

  • Estimating the Number of Stars Near the Sun

    This problem involves making an estimate of the star density in the vicinity the Sun by using the Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars. Given the star density, we can compute the number of stars we would expect to find in a sphere of 100 light-years radius about the Sun.

  • Computing the Power Required to Send A Clear Signal to All Stars Near the Sun Simultaneously

    Here we compute the power required to drive a signal powerful enough to be received by all stars within 100 light-years distance of the Sun using an antenna that radiates power equally in all directions (i.e. isotropic radiator).

  • Computing the Power Advantage of Beamforming

    Using a large antenna, we can generate a very directional beam. This allows us to reduce our instantaneous power needs enormously, but we can only broadcast to a very narrow region of the sky. I have gone into beamforming basics in this post.

Analysis

Number of "Local" Stars

The analysis is pretty straightforward:

  • Get a catalog of nearby stars.

    There are numerous catalogs available -- just pick one that focuses on local stars.

  • Find out how many stars are near the Sun.

    I will use a 5 parsec (pc) neighborhood of the Sun to estimate the star density.

  • Estimate the density of stars in the Sun's neighborhood.

    I will assume this density is the same out to 100 light-years from the Sun. The idea here is that (1) we are more likely to have a good accounting of stars near the Sun that those further out because many stars are dim, and (2) the galaxy is so large relative to 100 light-years that the density of stars probably changes little out to 100 light-years.

  • Estimate the number of stars in a 100 light-year neighborhood of the Sun.

    Simply multiply the volume in a 100 light-year sphere by our estimate for the density of stars.

Figure 1 shows my Mathcad worksheet that estimates the number of stars within 100 light-years of the Sun. This analysis follows the approach of this source.

Figure 1: Estimate for the Number of Stars Within 100 Light-Years of the Sun.

Figure 1: Estimate for the Number of Stars Within 100 Light-Years of the Sun.

Definition of Parsec NASA reference calculation

Thus, there are likely over 14,000 stars within 100 light-years of our Sun.

Power for Driving an Isotropic Radiator over 100 Light-Years.

The article author computed the power needed to drive a readable signal based on the following assumptions:

  • Assume the antenna is an isotropic radiator.

    This assumption means that the radio power is projected equally in all directions -- the radio power distribution is spherically symmetric.

  • Assume the receive antenna has aperture of 1 m2.

    We have to make some assumption for the size of the receive antenna in order to estimate the amount of transmit power that will be received.

  • The power is readable at 100 light-years distance.

    Given a 1 m2 antenna aperture, this means that the signal level at 100 light-years is at the thermal noise level.

Figure 2 contains the calculation, which also shows that this transmit power is more than 5000 times greater than the total electrical power generation capacity of the United States.

Figure 2: Calculate the Power Needed to Communicate with a Star 100 Light-Years Away.

Figure 2: Calculate the Power Needed to Communicate with a Star 100 Light-Years Away.

Definition of Parsec Total Power Generation Capacity

Beamforming's Power Advantage

Figure 3 shows the calculations associated with estimating the power advantage gained by using a large antenna with a very narrow, circular beam. This beam would be tough to steer accurately, but it would make the amount of power required substantially less. Unfortunately, you probably would only be able to send a signal to one star at a time.

Figure 3: Power Advantage Provided By Beamforming.

Figure 3: Power Advantage Provided By Beamforming.

Circular Aperture Model

Conclusion

I have reviewed the calculations in the article and I was able to duplicate the author's results. This analysis shows the difficulty associated with radio communication between stars -- it is more than slow -- it takes power and/or an extensive antenna system.

Posted in Astronomy, General Mathematics | 7 Comments

Battleship Rangefinders and Geometry

Quote of the Day

Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

— Winston Churchill.

Introduction

While reading a web page on WW2 naval warfare, I found some interesting material on how naval gunfire was spotted -- the process for correcting aiming errors. This web page contained Table 1, which indicates the maximum range at which an observer 100 feet above the waterline on a ship (called "own ship") can see another ship (called "target") of a given height above the waterline.

Table 1: US Navy Table of Maximum Range Assuming a 100 foot Rangefinder Height and Variable Target Height.

Target Height(ft)

Range (yards)

10

30700

20

33600

30

36100

40

37900

50

39700

60

41300

70

42800

80

44200

90

45400

100

46600

110

47600

120

48900

I can regenerate Table 1 using the distance-to-the-horizon equation I derived in this post. I thought this would be a nice application example.

Let's dig in ...

Background

Table 1 assumes that we are limited to seeing objects that are visible optically on the horizon assuming refraction. Before radar, battleships had all sorts of optical measuring instruments for detecting targets and measuring their range. Figure 1 shows a battleship photograph that calls them out (Source).

Figure 1: Optics Deployed on the USS Idaho.

Figure 1: Optics Deployed on the USS Idaho.

For battleships to engage targets at long range, they needed to be able to accurately determine the range to targets and optical rangefinders were an excellent solution prior to the arrival of radar. In this post, I want to take a closer look at how rangefinders worked. The original concept for these naval optical rangefinders was developed by Bradley Fiske, a naval technologist that few people know about today. I read his biography and was very impressed with the scope of his inventiveness.

There were many variations on the basic rangefinder idea. For my purposes here, we will look more closely at the variant known as a coincidence rangefinder. Figure 2 shows a block diagram of a coincidence rangefinder (Source).

Figure 2: Block Diagram of a Coincidence Rangefinder.

Figure 2: Block Diagram of a Coincidence Rangefinder.

There are two prisms (actually called pentaprisms) at the end of two long arms -- each arm often 4 or 5 meters in length. The design brings the images into coincidence by rotating the compensating wedge prisms. In theory, they could have rotated one of the pentaprisms to bring the images into coincidence, but it turns out that is difficult to do accurately on targets at long range. The compensating wedge prisms provide a more accurate solution. There are numerous subtleties in the construction of these devices that are beyond the scope of this note. See the source for some of the interesting details. The compensator prism wedges and their function are particularly interesting.

These rangefinders were quite large and were often armored. Figure 3 shows a rangefinder from the Graf Spee, a German "pocket" battleship (Source).

Figure 3: Rangefinder from the Graf Spee.

Figure 3: Rangefinder from the Graf Spee.

The following quote nicely describes its function (Source).

The coincidence range finder uses a single eyepiece and uses a prism to merge images from both lenses into a single image to present to the operator. The operator adjusts the rotation of the prisms using a dial until the images overlap in the eyepiece. The degree of rotation of the prisms determines the range to the target by simple trigonometry.

The operation of the pentaprisms is interesting. Figure 4 contains a nice illustration of how the light bounces around a pentaprism (Source).

Figure 4: Light Bouncing in a Pent-Prism.

Figure 4: Light Bouncing in a Pentaprism.

The basic geometry involved with a coincidence rangefinder is simple enough. Figure 5 shows that the coincidence rangefinder determines range using simple Euclidean trigonometry (Source).

Figure 5: Coincidence Rangefinder Geometry.

Figure 5: Coincidence Rangefinder Geometry.

Here is another drawing that does a nice job of illustrating how the rangefinders were constructed (Source).

Figure 6: Top View of an Optical Rangefinder.

Figure 6: Top View of an Optical Rangefinder.

For those of you interested in how the rotating prism can support precise angular measurements, see this comment for details.

Analysis

Strategy

Here is my analysis approach:

  • Develop a formula for the maximum range of an optical rangefinder

    I will assume that the observation height above the waterline is what limits the maximum range of the rangefinder.

  • Determine the refraction radius that the US Navy used.

    The maximum range will be affected by refraction. This post gives us a way to model the refraction by using a refraction radius.

  • Compare my results with the results listed by the US Navy.

    I will examine the differences between the US Navy's table and the equivalent table generated by my formula.

Optical Rangefinder Maximum Range Formula

Equation 1 shows the formula for determining the range to the horizon assuming refraction (from this post).

Eq. 1 {{s}}\left( h,{{r}_{E}},{{r}_{R}} \right)=\sqrt{\frac{2\cdot {{r}_{E}}\cdot h}{1-\frac{{{r}_{E}}}{{{r}_{R}}}}}

where

  • rE is the radius of the Earth.
  • rR is the radius of the refraction circle.
  • h is the height of the observation point.
  • s is the arc length from the observation point to the horizon.

Figure 7 shows the maximum range scenario that a battleship would experience with a target. We will apply Equation 1 twice to determine the maximum rangefinder range.

Figure 7: Optical Geometry for Analysis.

Figure 7: Optical Geometry for Analysis.

Using Figure 6 and assuming each ship just sees the other on the horizon, we can determine the maximum range using Equation 2 -- which uses Equation 1 twice.

\displaystyle {{s}_{Rangefinder}}\left( h,H,{{r}_{E}},{{r}_{R}} \right)=\sqrt{\frac{2\cdot {{r}_{E}}\cdot h}{1-\frac{{{r}_{E}}}{{{r}_{R}}}}}+\sqrt{\frac{2\cdot {{r}_{E}}\cdot H}{1-\frac{{{r}_{E}}}{{{r}_{R}}}}}

Eq. 2 \displaystyle {{s}_{Rangefinder}}\left( h,H,{{r}_{E}},{{r}_{R}} \right)={{s}_{O}}+{{s}_{T}}
\displaystyle {{s}_{Rangefinder}}\left( h,H,{{r}_{E}},{{r}_{R}} \right)={{s}}\left( h,{{r}_{E}},{{r}_{R}} \right)+{{s}}\left( H,{{r}_{E}},{{r}_{R}} \right)

where

  • H is the height of the rangefinder.
  • h is the height of the target.
  • sO is the arc length from my own ship to the horizon.
  • sT is the arc length from the target ship to the horizon.

US Navy Refraction Radius

This is an error minimization problem. I can write a routine that finds the refraction radius that minimizes the error between my formula (Eq. 2) and the US Navy's table. Figure 8 shows my Mathcad routine form performing this minimization. I minimized the maximum error. You could also minimize the maximum percentage error -- the answers are very similar.

Figure 8: Determination of Refraction Radius Used By US Navy.

Figure 8: Determination of Refraction Radius Used By US Navy.

Error Between My Formula and the US Navy Table

Figure 9 shows my comparison between the US Navy result (Table 1) and my formula (Eq. 2). The agreement is very good considering they probably used slide rules for their work. I shudder thinking of my own youth when I had to use slide rules.

Figure 9: Comparsion by US Navy Rangefinder Table and My Formula.

Figure 9: Comparison by US Navy Rangefinder Table and My Formula.

Conclusion

I showed that the US Navy table and my formula produce results that are within 0.3% of each other for a refraction radius that is 6.975 that of the Earth's radius (they probably just used 7). This accuracy is reasonable assuming they were using a slide rule for their computations.

In Figure 10, I thought I would add an excellent picture of a rangefinder from a US Navy ship's fire control system to show how their appearance could vary (Source).

Figure 10: Rangefinder incorporated in Mk19 Fire Control System on USS Pennsylvania (BB 38).

Figure 10: Rangefinder incorporated in Mk19 Fire Control System on USS Pennsylvania (BB 38).

If you are looking for more information on WW2 rangefinders, here is a manual. It is a large file (>7MB).

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Posted in Naval History, optics | 19 Comments

Distance to the Horizon Assuming Refraction

Quote of the Day

Fate rarely calls upon us at a moment of our choosing.

— Optimus Prime. This quote shows that inspiration can come from anywhere.


Introduction

Figure 1: Illustration Showing that Refraction Increases the Perceived Distance to the Horizon.

Figure 1: Illustration Showing that Refraction Increases the Perceived Distance to the Horizon.

While doing some reading on lighthouses, I needed a formula to compute the distance to the horizon as a function of height. This formula would give me an idea of how far away a lighthouse could be seen.

As I usually do, I started with the Wikipedia and it listed two interesting equations:

  • Eq. 1: \displaystyle s\left[ \text{km} \right]=3.57\cdot \sqrt{h\left[ m \right]}

    where s is the distance along the Earth's surface in kilometers and h is the height of the observer in meters. This formula assumes that light moves strictly in straight lines. You will also see it in the form s=\sqrt{2 \cdot h \cdot r_E}, where r_E is the radius of the Earth.

  • Eq. 2: \displaystyle s\left[ \text{km} \right]=3.86\cdot \sqrt{h\left[ m \right]}

    This formula assumes that light is refracted and travels along a circular arc.

Allowing for refraction means that light will curve around the geometrical horizon (Eq. 2),  which means that we will see objects that are just beyond the horizon. Using Eq. 2, we will compute a horizon distance that is about 7% further than predicted by Eq. 1. Figure 1 illustrates this point.

While I frequently see refraction modeled using Eq. 2, I have not seen anyone go into the details of Eq. 2 -- I am sure this analysis exists -- I just have not seen it. So I will dive into the details of Eq. 2 in this post. I have seen the Eq.1 derived in a number of places, so I will not repeat its derivation here.

The material presented in this blog is similar to that presented on mirages. I have included some mirage information in Appendix B.

Background

Basic Idea

Light bends because of density differences in the atmosphere. These density differences are caused by (1) altitude and (2) temperature. Of course, temperature and pressure vary with time. To get some idea of the effect of refraction on the distance to the horizon, we need to assume a "typical" atmosphere. We can derive Eq. 2 using the typical atmosphere assumption, but we need to understand that those conditions are often not present.

Analysis

Here is my problem solving approach:

  • Show that the air's index of refraction is a simple function of density.
  • Develop an expression for the rate of change of air's index of refraction.
  • Develop an expression for the radius of curvature of a refracted light beam.
  • Develop an expression for the arc length along the Earth's surface that a refracted light beam will traverse.
  • Simplify the expression by assuming typical atmospheric conditions and common units.

Air's Refractivity as a function of Density

Because air's index of refraction is very close to 1, physicists usually talk in terms of refractivity. The refractivity of air is defined as \displaystyle {{N}_{Air}}\triangleq \left( n-1 \right)\cdot {{10}^{6}}, where n is the index of refraction. One common formula for the refractivity of dry air is given by Equation 3 (Source).

Eq. 3 \displaystyle {{N}_{Air}}=\left( 776.2+\frac{4.36\cdot {{10}^{-8}}}{{{\lambda }^{2}}} \right)\cdot \frac{P}{T}

where

  • P is air pressure [kPa].
  • T is the air temperature [K].
  • \lambda is the wavelength of light [cm].

Using the ideal gas law, we can show that temperature and pressure are closely related to density as shown in Equation 4.

Eq. 4 \displaystyle P\cdot V=n_m\cdot R\cdot T\Rightarrow \frac{P}{T}=\frac{m}{M{{W}_{Air}}}\cdot \frac{R}{V}=\frac{m}{V}\cdot \frac{R}{M{{W}_{Air}}}=\rho \cdot \frac{R}{M{{W}_{Air}}}

where

Equation 4 states that the ratio of P/T is proportional to \rho (R and MWAir are constants). This means we can restate Equation 3 in the simpler form shown in Equation 5.

Eq. 5 \displaystyle {{N}_{Air}}=a\left( \lambda \right)\cdot \rho

where

  • a\left( \lambda \right) is a function of the wavelength of light.

The index of refraction is a function of wavelength, as is shown in Figure 2. Note how the shorter wavelengths have a larger index of refraction than the longer wavelengths.

Figure 2: Air's Index of Refraction Versus Wavelength.

Figure 2: Air's Index of Refraction Versus Wavelength.

For this post, I will assume that the wavelength of light is fixed and that a\left( \lambda \right) is a constant.

Air's Index of Refraction Rate of Change

For light to refract in the atmosphere, it must encounter air with an index of refraction that varies. The air's index of refraction is a function of its density, which varies with altitude and temperature. We can express the variation of the atmosphere's index of refraction using Equation 6.

Eq. 6 \displaystyle \frac{dn}{dz}=-\frac{\left( n-1 \right)}{T}\cdot \left( \frac{\rho \cdot g\cdot T}{P}-\gamma \right)

where

  • n is the air index of refraction.
  • z is the altitude.
  • g is the acceleration due to gravity.
  • \gamma is the atmospheric lapse rate, which is defined as the rate of temperature decrease with height (i.e. \gamma =-\frac{dT}{dz}).

Deriving this expression requires manipulation of the ideal gas law. The derivation is straightforward but tedious. I have included it in Appendix A.

Equation 6 has a couple of interesting aspects:

      • \frac{dn}{dz}=0 when \gamma = \frac{\rho \cdot g\cdot T}{P}

        This value of \gamma is known as the autoconvective lapse rate. This rare condition means that light does not refract. It occurs over surfaces that are easily heated, like open fields and deserts. This condition requires that the rate of temperature decrease with altitude to cause an air density increase that exactly cancels the air density decrease with altitude.

      • Usually, \frac{dn}{dz} < 0

        The change of index with altitude is normally negative because the air density increase with altitude associated with decreasing temperature is not enough to cancel the air density decrease with altitude. Since light bends towards regions of higher density, light projected straight from a lighthouse will refract toward the Earth's surface under normal circumstances (as shown in Figure 1).

We can compute the autoconvective lapse rate as shown in Figure 3. The value I obtain here can be confirmed at this web page.

Figure 3: Calculation of the Autoconvective Lapse Rate.

Figure 3: Calculation of the Autoconvective Lapse Rate.

Standard Atmosphere

Radius of Curvature for the Refracted Light Beam

Assuming a typical atmosphere, we can model the path of a refracted beam of light in the atmosphere as an arc on a circle. Figure 4 shows a derivation for the radius of curvature for a refracted beam of light. The radius of curvature will be constant (i.e. a circle) when \frac{dn}{dz} is a constant.

Figure 4: Derivation of the Radius of Curvature Expression.

Figure 4: Derivation of the Radius of Curvature Expression.

In the case of a lighthouse beam, \theta =90{}^\circ. This means we can write the refraction radius as \displaystyle {{r}_{R}}=-\frac{n}{\frac{dn}{dz}}.

Arc Length Traversed By A Refracted Light Beam

We are going to model the refracted light beam as moving along the arc of a circle of radius larger than that of the Earth. Figure 5 illustrates this situation.

Figure 5: Illustration of the Refracted Light Beam Moving Along the Arc of a Circle.

Figure 5: Illustration of the Refracted Light Beam Moving Along the Arc of a Circle.

Given the geometry shown in Figure 4, we can derive an expression for the arc length upon the Earth's surface that the light beam traverses as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Derivation of Formula for the Distance Traveled Along the Earth's Surface By Refracted Light Beam.

Figure 6: Derivation of Formula for the Distance Traveled Along the Earth's Surface By Refracted Light Beam.

Equation 7 shows the key result from the derivation in Figure 6.

Eq. 7 \displaystyle {{s}_{R}}\left( h,{{r}_{E}},{{r}_{R}} \right)=\sqrt{\frac{2\cdot {{r}_{E}}\cdot h}{1-\frac{{{r}_{E}}}{{{r}_{R}}}}}

where

  • rE is the radius of the Earth.
  • rR is the radius of the refraction circle.
  • h is the height of the lighthouse.

Notice how Eq.7 can be viewed as Eq. 1 with an enlarged Earth radius of {{{r}'}_{E}}=\frac{{{r}_{E}}}{1-\frac{{{r}_{E}}}{{{r}_{R}}}}. I see refraction often modeled by engineers who simply use Eq. 1 with an enlarged Earth radius. The radius used depends on the wavelength of the photons under consideration.

Simplified Arc Length Expression

Figure 7 shows how I obtained Equation 2 from Equation 7.

Figure 7: Equation 2 from Equation 7.

Figure 7: Equation 2 from Equation 7.

_AirIndex

Conclusion

While the derivation was a bit long, I was able to derive Equation 2 from first principles. The derivation shows that the final result is sensitive to the choice of lapse rate, which varies throughout the day. I should note that the use of a refraction radius that is a multiple of the Earth's radius is often applied to other types of electromagnetic signals. For example, radar systems frequently use a "4/3 Earth radius" for refraction problems (Source). The refraction radius for radar is different than for optical signals because the index of refraction in the radio band is different from that of optical signals.

Appendix A: Derivation of Rate of Change of Atmospheric Index of Refraction with Lapse Rate.

Figure A: Derivation of Rate of Change of Atmospheric Index of Refraction with Lapse Rate.

Figure A: Derivation of Rate of Change of Atmospheric Index of Refraction with Lapse Rate.

Ideal Gas Law Density of an Ideal Gas Law Definition of Lapse Rate Ref on Atmospheric Optics

Appendix B: Excellent Discussion of Index of Refraction, Lapse Rate, and Mirages.

I really like the way this author discusses mirages (Source).

Figure B: Excellent Description on the Formation of Mirages.

Figure B: Excellent Description on the Formation of Mirages.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Posted in General Science, Navigation, optics | 26 Comments

The Drinking History of the US

I have been reading "A Wicked War: Polk, Clay, Lincoln and the 1846 U.S. Invasion of Mexico" and I notice a common theme with other history books about the early US --drinking alcohol was a major preoccupation with early Americans. I became curious enough that I looked in the book "The Alcoholic Republic: An American Tradition" by W.J. Rorabaugh and found the following chart.

All_Alcohol

Notice the huge drop in consumption around 1850. This drop is consistent with development of a temperance movement in the US in the mid-19th century. This movement was significant enough to be mentioned in the history books that I have been reading.

There is also the drop around the 1920s to 1930s, that is when prohibition was put into effect. Notice how it doesn't completely drop to 0. That's because prohibition did not (and could not) stop people from consuming alcohol. Blood alcohol tests like those utilized when drug testing in Pampa TX would not be in common use by law enforcement until after prohibition. Meaning even if prohibition outlawed the drinking of alcohol, it would have been very hard to prove someone had done so unless they were visibly drunk. Drinking levels were low, but it was never 0.

As a boy, I delivered the Minneapolis Star afternoon newspaper door-to-door. Every two weeks I would collect money for the papers I delivered. People usually invited me into their homes because Minnesota was often cold outside. I was always surprised at the number of people who were drunk when I entered their homes. It did not matter what time of day I stopped by. A few of them were my peers so must have known where to buy fake id cards so they could buy alcohol underaged. I cannot imagine what I would have encountered if the alcohol consumption levels were two or three times greater than they were in 1970, a year in which I delivered papers. According to the 2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 14.4 million adults (18 and above) had Alcohol Use Disorder. I guess we have to grateful to those who run and work in addiction treatment centers, like Enterhealth (see their center at https://enterhealth.com/), as they help these people overcome their struggles with alcohol and addiction.

Posted in History of Science and Technology, Osseo, Personal | 3 Comments

Torpedo on an Aruba Beach

I have read in a number of places about torpedoes being found on beaches during wartime, but I have never seen pictures of one on a beach. While researching possible diving locations, I ran across this excellent excellent web article on a German WW2 torpedo that ran up on a beach in Aruba. Here is a link to a copy of contemporaneous news article on the same subject.

I have included the best picture I could find below.
Aruba
I would not stand that close to any unexploded ordnance. The text in the photograph indicates four men were killed trying to disarm it.

I have only had one hazardous incident in my career and it involved an underwater vehicle. During testing of a fully fueled vehicle, a thermal battery failed spectacularly immediately after I pushed the start button. The umbilical cable to the vehicle was blown free and a tongue of flame emerged from the vehicle's umbilical connector. This was not good. As always, I immediately suspected the battery had failed, which was mounted at the very end of the vehicle forebody (i.e. front-half of the vehicle). We knew the battery used the fuel tank in the afterbody as a heat sink, so another engineer and I quickly separated the front and rear sections of the vehicle. This action separated the battery from the fuel tank. Looking inside the vehicle forebody, I could see that the battery was so hot it was glowing red -- I could feel the heat on my face. Luckily, the fuel tank in the afterbody, filled with Otto fuel, had not been damaged. Otherwise, the fuel tank could have exploded and the coroner would have been asking for my dental records.

We contacted the battery vendor and they performed an analysis on the failed battery. Apparently, the battery had the plus and minus terminals swapped. Of the 15 batteries we had on hand, only one had this problem. This was scary. The battery had so much energy in it that it blew a large hole in our power supply circuit board.

I have always disliked batteries and "death by battery" is not how I want to go. I shudder just thinking about it ...

Posted in Naval History | Comments Off on Torpedo on an Aruba Beach

Fiber Optic Deployment Woes

We recently had a customer who reported that one of our products was reporting low RF video output power. This normally is caused by an issue with equipment setup, but everything this customer did was fine. It turned out that this particular unit had a serious ant problem in a fiber splice tray, a small box used to protect splices done on multiple optical fibers. After we cleaned out the ants, everything worked fine. How the ants caused a fiber failure is something we are still looking into. The figure below shows that the ants had found a nice, warm home.

Ants

Posted in Fiber Optics | Comments Off on Fiber Optic Deployment Woes