Emission of infra red from hot bodies

AI Thread Summary
Matt black surfaces are superior emitters of infrared radiation compared to shiny silver surfaces due to their higher emissivity, which is inversely related to reflectivity. Kirchhoff's law states that absorptivity equals emissivity, meaning materials that absorb more light also emit more infrared radiation. While Wien's law indicates that the peak emission of a hot body depends solely on temperature, it does not account for differences in emissivity. A shiny surface reflects most incoming radiation, resulting in lower heat emission compared to a matte surface that absorbs and emits more effectively. Understanding these principles clarifies why matte black surfaces cool down faster than shiny silver ones when heated.
DGriffiths
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
I've seen much mention in websites of matt black surfaces being better emitters of infra red than shiny silver ones so if a matt black and shiny silver surface are heated to about 100 deg C the black one will cool down more quickly as a result of this! Doesn't Wien's law state that the amount of I.R. emitted by a hot body is only dependent on the temperature??

My question is then why is a shiny silver surface a much poorer emitter than a matt black one?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
DGriffiths said:
<snip>

My question is then why is a shiny silver surface a much poorer emitter than a matt black one?

Because of the conservation of energy: absorptivity + reflectivity + transmissivity = 1. For an opaque material, transmissivity = 0. Also, absorptivity = emissivity (Kirchoff's law), so emissivity = 1 - reflectivity. More reflectivity = less emissivity.
 
Yep. The key to understanding this is to understand Kirchhoff's law equating absorptivity to emissivity. Imagine two people of different size sitting by a camp fire. Who heats up the quickest, and who stays hot the longest?
 
DGriffiths said:
I'Doesn't Wien's law state that the amount of I.R. emitted by a hot body is only dependent on the temperature??
No Wien's law says that the peak position of the blackbody curve only depends on temperature
 
Thanks very much for all replies - I'd only heard of Kirchoff in respect to electrical circuits.

I get the "emissivity = 1 - reflectivity. More reflectivity = less emissivity." if that's what the law says but I still don't get why? Is there any mental picture (even if not totally accurate) that may help. I can see that the bending of molecules (due to the fact that charged particles are being accelerated) can result in the emission of e.m radiation in the infra red region but I still have no model of what is going on at the surface of a shiny metal that results in the emission of i.r. and also why it is so poor at doing so.

I appreciate I may be wanting a handwavy classical model that is not appropriate for a quantum mechanical concept but if anyone has any ideas I'd really appreciate it.
 
Andy was right in pointing you to conservation of energy. Consider a silver ball and a black ball illuminated by the same heat source. They should come to the same temperature. But the silver ball reflects most of the light falling on it while the black ball absorbs the light. Therefore to shed the same amount of heat at the same temperature, the black ball must have a much higher emissivity.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top