I Understanding the Beer-Lambert Law and Its Derivation

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Carlos de Meo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Beer
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the Beer-Lambert Law, specifically the equation T = I0*(1-R)²*exp(-βx), where T represents transmission, R is reflection, β is the absorption coefficient, and x is the length of the material. Participants explore the derivation of the equation, particularly the (1-R)² term, which accounts for reflections occurring both at the entrance and exit of the material. It is clarified that the energy reflection coefficient R is consistent regardless of the direction of light, and that the equation assumes no surface absorption occurs. The conversation also touches on the minimal contribution of multiple reflections and the impact of dielectric interfaces on transmission and reflection. Overall, the key takeaway is the multiplication of transmission factors to determine the overall energy transmission through a material.
Carlos de Meo
Messages
22
Reaction score
2
Hi Guys
Studying some optical properties of materials and found this equation on Callister
T = I0*(1-R)2*(exp(-βx)
Where T is transmission, R reflection, β the absorption coefficient and x the lenght.
In the same chapter, the author says that this equation´s derivation is homework
I tried to derive it but really can't understand why it is (1-R)2
My attempt:
I0= IR+IA+IT
= I0*R +I0´*exp(-βx)+I0´*(1-exp(-βx))
I0´=I0*(1-R)
Am i missing any variable here or forgetting some efect?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Carlos de Meo said:
Hi Guys
Studying some optical properties of materials and found this equation on Callister
T = I0*(1-R)2*(exp(-βx)
Where T is transmission, R reflection, β the absorption coefficient and x the lenght.
In the same chapter, the author says that this equation´s derivation is homework
I tried to derive it but really can't understand why it is (1-R)2
My attempt:
I0= IR+IA+IT
= I0*R +I0´*exp(-βx)+I0´*(1-exp(-βx))
I0´=I0*(1-R)
Am i missing any variable here or forgetting some efect?
I think the answer is, it got into the material (transmission factor of ## (1-R) ## with fraction of energy ## R ## being reflected), and then it traverses the material with exponential attenuation with distance, and then a factor (=another factor) of ## (1-R) ## for the energy that gets out of the material. ## \\ ## It turns out, the energy reflection coefficient ## R ## is the same regardless of whether the reflection begins from outside the material or inside of it. ## R=(n_1-n_2)^2/(n_1+n_2)^2 ##. (The Fresnel reflection coefficient for the ## E ## field is ## \rho=E_r/E_i=(n_1-n_2)/(n_1+n_2) ## and intensity (energy) ## I=nE^2 ## (in units that the optics people use). The result is the energy reflection coefficient ## R=I_r/I_i=E_r ^2/E_i ^2=\rho^2=(n_1-n_2)^2/(n_1+n_2)^2 ## regardless of which order ## n_1 ## and ## n_2 ## become encountered.) ## \\ ## Additional item is that the problem assumes that no surface absorption occurs. Any absorption is a loss that occurs as the light beam traverses the material. It also makes the approximation that the contribution of transmitted beam resulting from multiple reflections is minimal. And it doesn't address at all the coherent case of multiple reflections that can occur where the surfaces are extremely parallel in which case a wavelength dependent interference can occur with the multiple reflections that is known as the Fabry-Perot effect.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Carlos de Meo
But doing the calculations and adding now the second reflection at the second interface, i still don´t get how Callister made the (1-R)2. Now i get a value of (1-R)/(1+R) instead of the value above
 
Carlos de Meo said:
But doing the calculations and adding now the second reflection at the second interface, i still don´t get how Callister made the (1-R)2. Now i get a value of (1-R)/(1+R) instead of the value above
Energy transmission factor ## T=1-R ##. The material is considered to be a dielectric slab, perhaps 1" thick. You get one factor of ## T ## as you enter the surface, (you lose a factor ## R ## ), and one factor ## T ## as it exits on the other side. Dielectric interfaces always cause partial reflections (and partial transmissions) as the light enters a new material=e.g. a glass air interface. When you pass the critical angle you can get total internal (100%) reflection, but that won't occur with parallel faces. Also, at the Brewster angle for parallel polarization there is 100% transmission, but otherwise, in general, dielectric interfaces cause partial transmissions and partial reflections. How did you get a ## 1/(1+R) ##?. This one is really quite simple=it's simply a second (multiplying) factor of ## T=1-R ##. The attenuation factor, ## e^{-\alpha x} ## is a transmission factor as well even though it is (loosely) called an attenuation factor. These factors are multiplied together. They do not add together. You multiply the 3 energy transmission factors to get the resulting energy transmission.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Charles Link
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
Back
Top