Why must an integrating sphere be a sphere? Why can't it be an integrating cube? What is the difference? Could I use a cube to measure total illuminance like an integrating sphere does?

enter image description here

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Your question is very difficult to understand, as it is unclear what you're asking. Can you phrase your question more clearly? $\endgroup$ Apr 6, 2014 at 15:47

2 Answers 2


Surface coating of an integrating sphere is optimized for low losses. This white coating (barium sulfate or PTFE/Teflon) acts like an ideal lambertian scatterer.

Lambertian scatterer

  • all light is scattered (Ok, not 100%, but a very high percentage like 99,5%. See ressources)
  • it is emitted in the hemisphere following the cosine law: perpendicular to the surface it's highest. Intensity decrease follows a cosine law.

First generation stray light (blue in OP's picture) shows this light cone. Imagine this cone at the corner of a cube: some light will hit a wall again and suffers tiny losses. Detector port in cubic geometry hat a lower propability to to be hit with the ray of highest energy. With a sphere however all surface normal vectors point to its center. Remember, that these rays "carry more energy" according to Lambert's cosine law. It will have lower losses than a measurement head with a cube geometry. A spherical geometry reduces the necessary number of stray events.



In a sphere, any light emitted from the center will reflect off the sides at normal incidence come back to the center. In a cube, some rays never return to the center, so you aren't measuring all of the light emitted, which defeats the purpose of the device.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.