Talk:Attenuation coefficient

Removing and merging
The page Linear attenuation coefficient would be best removed and merged in a section on the page entitled "Attenuation coefficient". This way the the Linear attenuation coefficient can be described together with the mass attenuation coefficent in one article. Jdrewitt 15:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge Completed on 1 October 2007 Jdrewitt 08:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot read the plot labels
Anyone else have a problem seeing the exponents on the Mass Attenuation Coefficient plot? Ty8inf (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Merger complete
Note: I've merged the stub-article absorption coefficient onto this page, due to the substantial overlap of content, neither page explaining why it should differ from the other, and no one objecting to my merge tag. I put in a section explaining the difference between absorption and attenuation. I think maybe this newly-merged page to be relocated to absorption coefficient, since that's the more common term, but I'll leave that for a future editor. :-)

If there were to be a split of this article in the future (and I'm not saying there should be) it would probably be more productive to have a split along the lines of absorption coefficient (acoustics). The distinction between how absorption is discussed in acoustics and x-ray-optics is a much bigger gap than the distinction between attenuation and absorption. --Steve (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good job on the merger and I would tend to agree that there could be a separate article for the acoustics case. Polyamorph (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I agree the most common term is absorption coefficient, I'll make the move. Polyamorph (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, can't make the move as I'm not an admin. Will come back to this after investigating the WP:Requested_moves process. Polyamorph (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it could help to also add in a discussion of "broad beam" vs "narrow beam". Thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.125.98 (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The section "attenuation versus absorption" discusses this to some extent, but if there's something confusing or left out, please add it in! :-) --Steve (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that it was wrong to merge attenuation and absorption coefficients. Nor was there any discussion before it was performed. These are two different terms only related by the fact that they are related by the Beer-Lambert Law. I vote that the merge should be undone. Broad beam v. narrow beam only applies to attenuation, the related term absorption cross-section only applies to absorpton. A B McDonald (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 12:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am even more convinced that it was wrong to merge attenuation and absorption coefficients. It is only in some fields that they are the same but in others it is extinction and attenuation which are equivalent. It needs someone with a broader view of these matters than me to sort it all out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abmcdonald (talk • contribs) 12:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Article does not quite define the concept
I came here while trying to understand precisely what "absorption coefficient" means in. I could not figure it out (and I have a degree in engineering...). If the absorption coefficient is 0.1 m-1, by how much is radiation attenuated after going through 20 meters of the material? The head section should have a precise definition of the concept that readers with basic knowledge of physics can understand. Also, the specialized definitions given in the body of the article should be better explained, and sorted by decreasing utility. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Mass thickness
An important parameter used in the literature (e.g. electron microscopy) is the "mass thickness" (kg per square meter). That was introduced here, but ommitted by later edits. I think this parameter deserves inclusion in this article.Esem0 (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Mistake for attenuation vs extinction vs absorption
I think maybe there is a mistake. Extinction coeff $$\kappa$$ should be imaginary part of complex index of refraction $$\tilde{n}=n+i\kappa$$, and also absorption coeff $$\alpha$$ and extinction coeff are related by
 * $$\alpha(\omega) = \left[ \frac{2\omega}{c}\right]\kappa$$

Or? Am I wrong? Like it's important not to mix up these three but the article isn't clear and may be wrong about this.... --Blue.painting (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguating the opening sentence/ definition.
"...how easily a volume of material can be penetrated by a beam of light, sound, particles, or other energy or matter."

I think it might be more correct to replace 'energy' with 'electromagnetic radiation,' because I think we're only talking about radiant energy in that context (when contrasted with 'matter'). It might be better to rephrase it entirely to:

"...how easily a volume of material can be penetrated by electromagnetic radiation or subatomic particles."

Thoughts? 69.4.157.201 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)