What Does "Opaque" Mean in Metrology?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WaltLankor
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the definition of "opaque" in metrology, specifically regarding its implications for focus detection instruments that require reflected light to function. Participants clarify that while "opaque" typically means no light transmission, it does not inherently exclude reflection, as even mirrors are considered opaque due to their reflective properties. The author of the metrology text clarified that the original statement about measuring opaque surfaces was intended to differentiate between various levels of reflectance and their impact on measurability. There is also mention of opacity being related to the mass attenuation coefficient, which includes both scattered and absorbed light. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the nuanced understanding of opacity in the context of metrology.
WaltLankor
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
I'm puzzled.
In an authoritative metrology text I read.
"Focus detection instruments cannot be used to measure 'opaque' surfaces"
as they require a finite level of reflected light to function.
Non transmittance being (to my understanding) the key definition of "opaque", I looked up the meaning of opaque in various places. A significant number of references give non transmittance and reflectance as the definition of an "opaque" surface.

Any definitive comments on this would be appreciated.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I could be wrong, but I don't think that the "normal" definition of opaqueness excludes reflection at all.
For example, a good mirror is opaque, yet certainly reflects.
 
Indeed that was my understanding and I would have put the reference from the metrology test down to a misprint if I had not found several references quoting definitions for Opaque as being dependent on lack of reflectance.

Thanks for the reply.
 
When light is incident on a surface, in percentages :

Absorption + Reflection + Transmission = 100%

Opaque means that Transmission = 0%
 
Dr Lots-o'watts said:
When light is incident on a surface, in percentages :

Absorption + Reflection + Transmission = 100%

Opaque means that Transmission = 0%

Thanks
That is my understanding of the situation too.
 
Apparently Opacity can be defined as 'mass attenuation coefficient', which is the sum of scattered and absorbed light, so opacity can be a function of reflectance in effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opacity_(optics )

Anyway the author of the text in question has clarified the sentence quoted in my original post.
"Focus detection instruments cannot be used to measure 'opaque' surfaces"
Taking into account a contextual comment regarding focus detection instruments requiring a finite amount of light to be reflected into their detectors from the sample.
The intention of the queried comment was to distinguish between the measurability of opaque surfaces with differing reflectances, or perhaps differing combined levels of absorption and scattering.
So there you go.

Thanks all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
I am attempting to use a Raman TruScan with a 785 nm laser to read a material for identification purposes. The material causes too much fluorescence and doesn’t not produce a good signal. However another lab is able to produce a good signal consistently using the same Raman model and sample material. What would be the reason for the different results between instruments?
Back
Top