Re: Directional emissivity?
- From: vxg49@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 29 Apr 2005 14:06:02 -0700
Thanks for the excellent reply. I have one question. One atmospheric
physics textbook that I have (which, unfortunately, I don't have with
me at this moment) explicitly states that Kirchoff's law is also valid
for passive materials that _aren't_ in radiative equilibrium (where
emitted irradiance does not equal absorbed irradiance), contrary to
what I think you implied in your post. Or does "thermal equilibrium"
in this context mean something different from "radiative equilibrium"?
More specifically, the book uses the example of an infinite blackbody
plane in equilibrium with an infinite graybody plane, but the authors
go on to say that equilibrium is just a convenient assumption for the
purpose of illustrating Kirchoff's law, and that it's not a necessary
condition for the law to be valid.
Later tonight I can get an exact quote from the textbook since I may
have bungled it here.
.
- References:
- Directional emissivity?
- From: vxg49
- Re: Directional emissivity?
- From: Andy Resnick
- Directional emissivity?
- Prev by Date: Re: The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
- Next by Date: WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 29 Apr 05 Washington, DC
- Previous by thread: Re: Directional emissivity?
- Next by thread: Re: full online version of the book
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|