Talk:Transmittance

message: Perhaps a stub tag would be appropriate?
--scienceman 21:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: then put one on it? --Dan027 11:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub?

message: A stub tag is not appropriate. This is a nice, consice article
199.80.247.96 18:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not really... 

message: I removed .  Please do not place this tag on here unless there is enough content to section off or if the content does not require this type of tag.  Thanks.Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 01:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed tag 

message: The word "transmission" in this article links to the article on "Transmission (telecommunications)."  That seems hardly to be the same thing.  I have a feeling it should be unlinked, but I'm not really sure.  140.147.160.34 (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.--Adoniscik (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Transmission" link wrong? 

message: The two given formulae for absorbance can not possible both hold at the same time, since the bases of the two logarithms are different.
Longbowman3 (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formulae for absorbance can not be both true 

message: This article is incorrect. Transmittance is more properly the ratio of powers, not the ratio of intensities. Due to the changing area of a "pencil of rays" (see the Fresnel equation page), the two are not the same, but differ by a factor of cos(theta2)/cos(theta1). See for example Optics by Hecht, pg 120 (4th edition), equation 4.55. 
--Johncolton (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratio of powers, not intensities 

message: There seems to be a contradiction in the definition of optical depth, \mathcal{\tau}_\lambda. This is the definition for absorptance, assuming no reflection. Matching the two definitions gives - \ln \left({I\over I_{0}}\right) = \frac{I_0-I}{I_0} which is obviously inconsistent. I realize that the first definition has a subscript while the second does not, but whether you use the equation for a specific wavelength or over a range of wavelengths shouldn't matter. 129.110.242.17 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Optical depth definition incorrect? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Transmittance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil/EO-IR.htm#transmission
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It's weird that the article starts by linking surface transmittance and stating that it concerns only volumes - and then promptly defines surface transmittance? 
Maybe this could be structured differently between the two articles? Or is it just a phrasing problem? I don't know much about transmittance tbh. I'm just confused  Dolphinkitty (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation from surface transmittance in lead section