A doubt regarding the proof of kirchoff's law of thermal radiation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation, specifically focusing on the relationship between emissivity and absorptivity in an isothermal cavity and a small opaque body within it. Participants explore the implications of energy conservation and the definitions of emissivity and absorptivity in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a scenario involving an isothermal cavity and a small body, questioning whether the proof's approach of equating radiation fluxes rather than energy flow rates is valid.
  • Another participant asks whether emissivity and absorptivity are extensive or intensive properties, indicating a potential area of confusion regarding their definitions.
  • A third participant references Kirchhoff's Law, suggesting that the relationship between emissivity and absorptivity is a function of frequency and temperature, which aligns with the behavior of a black body.
  • One participant elaborates on the complexities of calculating how much emitted radiation from the cavity interacts with the small body, noting that geometric considerations may complicate the analysis.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the proof's methodology and the definitions of properties involved. There is no consensus on whether the approach taken in the proof is correct or whether the assumptions made are valid.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential limitations in the proof, such as the assumption of equal areas and the complexities introduced by geometric factors in radiation interactions.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying thermal radiation, particularly in the context of Kirchhoff's law, as well as individuals exploring the properties of emissivity and absorptivity in thermal systems.

ashutoshd
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
In the proof that I have studied, there is a Isothermal cavity that behaves as a black body. there is another small opaque body inside the cavity at the same temperature with emissivity e, absorptivity a and area s. now the irradiation on the small body is Eb = σ times T raised to 4. now the small body absorbs "a" times Eb. And emissive power is e times Eb. Then by conservation of energy we have a*Eb= e* Eb. therefore a = e. What i haven't understood is that since the cavity emits Eb watts per unit area, shouldn't we multiply it by the internal area of the cavity to get energy flow in watts and then equate it with the emissive power of the small body also multiplied by its own area. This way we will be equating the rates of energy streaming rather than the radiation fluxes as has been done in the proof. But since the areas of the small body and the internal area of the cavity are obviously not equal, will a not be equal to e then?
 
Science news on Phys.org
are emissivity and absorptivity extensive or intensive properties?
 
I thought that Kirchoff's Law claims that:

<br /> e/a = f(\nu, T)<br />

where f is a function function which coincides with the emissivity of a black body.
 
ashutoshd said:
What i haven't understood is that since the cavity emits Eb watts per unit area, shouldn't we multiply it by the internal area of the cavity to get energy flow in watts [...]
Some parts of this energy flow will hit the cavity again, as long as your body in the cavity is not really close to the cavity walls (and in that case, the areas are equal).
In the general case, it can be tricky to calculate how much of the emitted radiation of the cavity hits the cavity again. But you can use the surface of your (convex?) body to determine this. Or just ignore the geometric details and assume a constant energy density in the volume.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
9K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K