Talk:Tyndall effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

What exactly does it mean to "scatter better"? 128.62.87.163 07:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

a better way of saying that would have been "scatter more", instead of scatter better. meaning that with an equivalent intensity, a blue light will have more scattering happening than a red one (and less light transmitted as a consequence) Palleas 13:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


How is this process different to Rayleigh Scattering? I'd heard of Rayleigh scattering before this, but I cannot see the difference, surely either there is a subtle distinction I've yet to notice or one is made obsolete by the other. fildon, 6th of March 2007

Same thing, Tyndall's work predates Rayleigh but Rayleigh explanation is more comprehensive and he gave it a theorical background, so credit goes generally to Rayleigh. - phe 00:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Not the same thing: Tyndall effect refers to scattering within a medium containting suspended particles (i.e. colloids) such as dust. The sky would look blue even if there was no dust because of Rayleigh scattering - an interaction of light and the air molecules themselves. Jawshoeaw 04:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)jawshoeaw

I agree with Jawshoeaw. The Rayleigh scattering, as I understand it is provoked by the medium absorbing a part of the incident light and re-emiting it by resonnance. Whereas the Tyndall effect does not happen with the medium itself, but with suspended particles in it. A way of perceiving that is that the rayleigh scattering is always present (as long as there is light), whereas the tyndal effect appears only when the medium as particles (dust, droplets...) in it Palleas 13:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Nebula bank?[edit]

What is a nebula bank? I can't find this anywhere on the Internet - should it be removed? Jason7825 21:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The Rayleigh Effect vs. The Tyndall Effect[edit]

Actually, it is the same thing. Only Rayleigh's study of the effect was more sufficient than Tyndall's. I believe the reason for this is because Rayleigh had more resources than Tyndall, but that does not discredit him. He still was more accurate in his findings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.39 (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No it is not the same thing. We're talking about the definition of Scientific Term, not the politics of who was credited with discovering what. That debate is relevant only to John Tyndall's contribution to Rayleigh scattering. For correct definitions of Tyndall Effect, see :

The image with the opal is used on both pages, Tyndall and Rayleigh. The description of the image on both pages attributes the effect contradictory to that described on the page. But then the Rayleigh effect is explicitly described as NOT being the same as the Tyndall effect. --87.173.1.95 (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Picture[edit]

The picture caption at the bottom says the beams of light are caused by Tyndall scattering, but the paragraph next to it says this is better described as reflection. Which one is correct? TWCarlson (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the WP article on crepuscular rays has a gallery of images where more or less the same phenomenon is described as an example of crepuscular rays rather than Tyndall scatter. I think both of these articles need the intervention of someone knowledgeable in physics. Peter G Werner (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I've deleted the offending photo, which is either no example of Tyndall scattering or else a poor example that has other things going on in it. By the way, the photo was inserted on 23 Dec 2011. Seanwal111111 (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

"However, this is more like reflection, not scattering, as the macroscopic particles become clearly visible in the process."[edit]

Wait, why can't macroscopic objects be described as scattering light? Seems to work ok for small-angle scattering where the size of the particle is >> than the wavelength of the incident light. Admittedly, it still wouldn't be Tyndall scattering. So this may not be the best place to mention it. (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 14:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)