Talk:Transmittance

Stub?
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...
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
I removed. 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 talk ♦ contribs 01:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

- nageljr

Ratio of powers, not intensities
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?
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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Transmittance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil/EO-IR.htm#transmission

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Separation from surface transmittance in lead section
It's weird that the article starts by linking surface transmittance and stating that it concerns only volumes - and then promptly defines surface transmittance?

Maybe this could be structured differently between the two articles? Or is it just a phrasing problem? I don't know much about transmittance tbh. I'm just confused Dolphinkitty (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)