Talk:Transmittance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Spectroscopy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spectroscopy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spectroscopy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Stub?[edit]

Perhaps a stub tag would be appropriate? --scienceman 21:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

then put one on it? --Dan027 11:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really...[edit]

A stub tag is not appropriate. This is a nice, consice article 199.80.247.96 18:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

ITS A PIECE OF SHIT! WHAT ABOUT PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF WHAT IS GOING ON? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.74.110 (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed tag[edit]

I removed {{sections}}. Please do not place this tag on here unless there is enough content to section off or if the content does not require this type of tag. Thanks.
Gonzo fan2007 talkcontribs 01:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Transmission" link wrong?[edit]

The word "transmission" in this article links to the article on "Transmission (telecommunications)." That seems hardly to be the same thing. I have a feeling it should be unlinked, but I'm not really sure. 140.147.160.34 (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Fixed.--Adoniscik (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Formulae for absorbance can not be both true[edit]

The two given formulae for absorbance can not possible both hold at the same time, since the bases of the two logarithms are different.

Longbowman3 (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. The Beer–Lambert law article says that one of the formulas is for gases, the other for liquids.--Teak Hoken193.187.211.118 (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Absorption factor[edit]

"Absorption factor" is another common term, and is even defined in the same reference, so I added it.

- nageljr

Ratio of powers, not intensities[edit]

This article is incorrect. Transmittance is more properly the ratio of powers, not the ratio of intensities. Due to the changing area of a "pencil of rays" (see the Fresnel equation page), the two are not the same, but differ by a factor of cos(theta2)/cos(theta1). See for example Optics by Hecht, pg 120 (4th edition), equation 4.55. --Johncolton (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Optical depth definition incorrect?[edit]

There seems to be a contradiction in the definition of optical depth, \mathcal{\tau}_\lambda. This is the definition for absorptance, assuming no reflection. Matching the two definitions gives - \ln \left({I\over I_{0}}\right) = \frac{I_0-I}{I_0} which is obviously inconsistent. I realize that the first definition has a subscript while the second does not, but whether you use the equation for a specific wavelength or over a range of wavelengths shouldn't matter. 129.110.242.17 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)NewUser