3.

Orange

Distance (mm) 0 50 100 150 200

Power (m W ) 0.1157 0.1047 0.0914 0.0817 0.0749

Power density
2 0.1028 0.0926 0.0808 0.0722 0.0662
(m W /c m )

The table shown the trend of decreasing in power and power density when increase distance.
At the nearest location given a higher power of 0.1157 mW and power density of 0.1028 mW/cm 2. At
200 mm from the light source given the lowest power of 0.00749 mW and power density of 0.0066
mW/cm2

Yellow

Distance (mm) 0 50 100 150 200

Power (m W ) 0.0325 0.0182 0.0117 0.0094 0.0087

Power density
2 0.0287 0.0161 0.0100 0.0083 0.0077
(m W /c m )

This aligns with other LED studies, and the yellow LED's especially weak signal might be
due to environmental light affecting the experiment. The table shown the trend of decreasing in power
and power density when increase distance. At the nearest location given a higher power of 0.0325
mW and power density of 0.0287 mW/cm2. At 200 mm from the light source given the lowest power
of 0.0087 mW and power density of 0.0077 mW/cm2.

Infared

Distance (mm) 0 50 100 150 200

Power (mW ) 0.7550 0.0363 0.0517 0.0302 0.0057

Power density
2 3.8000 0.1850 0.2630 0.1540 0.0290
(mW /c m )

The data shows slight fluctuations, possibly due to invisible light interfering with calibration
and causing the LED to deviate slightly from perfectly directing towards the detector. The table
shown the trend of decreasing in power and power density when increase distance. At the nearest
location given a higher power of 0.7550 mW and power density of 3.8000 mW/cm 2. At 200 mm from
the light source given the lowest power of 0.0057 mW and power density of 0.0290 mW/cm2
4.

Orange

Estimated
No. d (cm) P0 (mW ) P1 (mW ) −1
μ( c m )
Exp 1 (absorption) 0.2 0.1157 0.0245 7.76

Exp 2 (scattering) 0.8 0.1157 0.0107 2.97

Exp 3 (both) 0.5 0.1157 0.0161 3.94

Exp 4 (all 3 layers) 1.5 0.1157 0.0036

Result evaluation:

μa μs μt =μa + μ s μt Relative Difference (% )

7.76 2.97 10.73 3.94 172.33

The absorption and scattering coeffient repsectively 7.76 c m−1 and 2.97 c m−1, the total
coefficent mathematically calculate is 10.73 c m−1. This disparity may be attributed to
displacement each time the experiment is altered and re-conducted. When the meat is
combined, instead of forming an original bulk, gaps are present, leading to non-uniformity as
light travels through, resulting in errors.

Yellow

Estimated
No. d (cm) P0 (mW ) P1 (mW ) −1
μ( c m )
Exp 1 (absorption) 0.2 0.0325 0.0044 10.00

Exp 2 (scattering) 0.8 0.0325 0.0021 4.48

Exp 3 (both) 0.5 0.0325 0.0009 5.48

Exp 4 (all 3 layers) 1.5 0.0325 0.0003

Result evaluation:

μa μs μt =μa + μ s μt Relative Difference (% )

10 4.48 14.48 5.48 164.23

The absorption and scattering coeffient repsectively 10 c m−1 and 4.48 c m−1, the total
coefficent mathematically calculate is 14.48 c m−1. The inconsistency observed could stem
from the repeated adjustments and reruns of the experiment, potentially causing slight shifts
each time. Additionally, when the meat is amalgamated, rather than maintaining its original
bulk, gaps form, creating irregularities in the material. Consequently, as light traverses
through this non-uniform medium, it introduces errors into the measurements.

Infared

Estimated
No. d (cm) P0 (mW ) P1 (mW ) −1
μ(c m )
Exp 1 (absorption) 0.2 0.755 0.1283 8.86

Exp 2 (scattering) 0.8 0.755 0.0625 4.98

Exp 3 (both) 0.5 0.755 0.0264 4.19

Exp 4 (all 3 layers) 1.5 0.755

Result evaluation:

μa μs μt =μa + μ s μt Relative Difference (% )

8.86 4.98 13.84 4.19 230.31

The absorption and scattering coeffient repsectively 8.86 c m−1 and 4.98 c m−1, the total
coefficent mathematically calculate is 13.84 c m−1. The difference could stem from the
shifting that occurs with each adjustment and repetition of the experiment. Furthermore,
when the meat is amalgamated, rather than maintaining its original bulk, empty spaces
emerge, causing irregularity as light traverses through, ultimately introducing inaccuracies.