Talk:Radiant intensity
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
‹See TfM›
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
a list of some visible stars, ranked by radiant intensity?
[edit]It would add interest to this article if we could rank some visible stars according to radiant intensity. Since absolute magnitude is based on the visible portion of the EM spectrum, I have no idea how to go about this. I know where to go look up lists of visible stars ranked by absolute magnitude, but I've no idea where to find a list of visible stars ranked by radiant intensity. This would need the attention of a qualified astrophysicist or astronomer. --arkuat (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Index Omega
[edit]Dear main author(s); I know that textbooks sometimes disagree when it comes to the letters used for radiant flux and related quantities. However, the IUPAP is the authorative reference for notation in physics, not textbooks. (At least that's what I was taught.) In their SUNAMCO RED BOOK (it can be found with google), 1987 revision, 2010 reprint, they give I or Ie for radiant intensity (p. 33). There is no index Ω. Besides, the index Ω is redundant, because radiant flux is Φ, so when going to radiant intensity = radiant flux per solid angle, we already have a change of symbol. Suggestion: remove the index Ω. Regards, Herbmuell (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me.--Srleffler (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello Srleffler, thank you for your feedback. Unfortunately I found that the notation Ie,Ω appears in quite a lot of wiki-pages with topics related to radiant intensity. Those entries were probably all done by the same author. So I guess we better leave things as they are. --Herbmuell (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not originally, but a year or two ago one editor went through all of the articles and introduced that notation.--Srleffler (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)