Why Do I Get W/nm Instead of W When Calculating Spectral Output?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Umabel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Radiance Units
Umabel
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
I'm told the spectral radiance of a source is in the following units

W
----------------
cm^2 * sr * nm

And I try to use this to figure the spectral output of monochromator (in W), but I can't seem to cancel out the units. I multiply the spectral radiance by four other terms

slit width (cm)
slit height (cm)
solid angle, using a quick "f-number" equation (sr)
and then the transmission optics factor, which I assume could be unitless but I could be wrong.

Anyways, anybody know why I get W/nm instead of W? Or is it really just W?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What would be the wavelength of the transmitted light from the monochromator?
 
I assume the source is monochromatic here, so the wavelength coming out of monochromator is also monochromatic...let's just say that the radiation is at 400nm or something...
 
So...what happens when you multiply your original equation by the transmitted wavelength??
 
If I multiply the rest of the equation by let's say, 400nm, then the nm units cancel out...

edit: though I have to admit that I am not totally convinced that this is what the unit implies. Is it some invisible reminder that the spectral radiance depends on what wavelength region this source is emitting from?
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top