What is the absorption coefficient of black-colored water?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the absorption and attenuation coefficients of black-colored water, highlighting confusion over their definitions and units. It clarifies that the attenuation coefficient, which is often confused with the absorption coefficient, measures total intensity loss, including scattering, while the absorption coefficient focuses solely on light absorption. The conversation emphasizes that the absorption coefficient should be less than 1, as it represents the fraction of light absorbed, while the attenuation coefficient can exceed this value due to scattering effects. Participants reference Wikipedia for definitions and equations related to these coefficients, noting the importance of understanding their distinct roles in light interaction with materials. The conversation underscores the need for clarity in scientific terminology to avoid misconceptions.
Basimalasi
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
I saw this on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water
Water_light_absorption_coefficient.gif


Isnt it supposed to less than 1 ?
maybe it has something to do with the unit ..why is it in m^-1?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"m^-1" reads "per meter". What dimensions were you expecting?

It's a good point: how can you possibly absorb more than 100% of the incident radiation?

But that ##\alpha_w## which is on the vertical axis is the "attenuation coefficient", is this the same as "absorption coefficient"? There is a link to the definition under the top graph in your link, did you check it out?
 
Simon Bridge said:
"m^-1" reads "per meter". What dimensions were you expecting?

It's a good point: how can you possibly absorb more than 100% of the incident radiation?

But that ##\alpha_w## which is on the vertical axis is the "attenuation coefficient", is this the same as "absorption coefficient"? There is a link to the definition under the top graph in your link, did you check it out?

well obviously but I was expecting it to have no units .. there are three types of coefficients you take into consideration when a beam of light hits an object: the reflection co ,the transmission co, and the absorption coefficient and they're all equal to 1
α+β+τ=1
so the absorption co α has to be less than 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuation_coefficient

Attenuation versus absorption

The terms "attenuation coefficient" and "absorption coefficient" are generally used interchangeably. However, in certain situations they are distinguished, as follows.[4]

When a narrow (collimated) beam of light passes through a substance, the beam will lose intensity due to two processes: The light can be absorbed by the substance, or the light can be scattered (i.e., the photons can change direction) by the substance. Just looking at the narrow beam itself, the two processes cannot be distinguished. However, if a detector is set up to measure light leaving in different directions, or conversely using a non-narrow beam, one can measure how much of the lost intensity was scattered, and how much was absorbed.

In this context, the "absorption coefficient" measures how quickly the beam would lose intensity due to the absorption alone, while "attenuation coefficient" measures the total loss of narrow-beam intensity, including scattering as well. "Narrow-beam attenuation coefficient" always unambiguously refers to the latter. The attenuation coefficient is always larger than the absorption coefficient, although they are equal in the idealized case of no scattering.

and this is where i got the chart, I clicked on that link but I could not understand s***
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water
 
That page gives you an equation: $$I(z)=I_0e^{-\alpha z}$$ ... where z is the distance through the material. I0 is the incoming flux, and I(z) is the flux after distance z.

This means that $$\alpha_z = -\frac{1}{z}\ln\left|\frac{I(z)}{I_0}\right|$$ ... so if a particular distance through the material removes roughly 35% or less of the incoming light, then the coefficient will be bigger than 1. A dimensional analysis will tell you what units ##\alpha## should have.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top