You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
you are using the unit quanta/(cm^2 * s) for photon flux density.
This is the same as photon irradiance
this is basically correct.
But I am not sure if quanta alone is correct. The term "quanta" alone may be clear to a physicist, active in assessment of radiation.
I am wondering if not photons/(cm^2 * s) would be better.
also possible:
number of photons/(cm^2 * s) or quanta of radiation/(cm^2 * s)
The SI unit would be 1/(m^2 * s)
The term "photon" or "quanta" is not a unit and is used only to make clear, what it is.
Earlier the term µEinstein or µmols has been used to express this quantity related to a mol of photons, but this is no longer supported by SI.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I mainly used quanta because in most publications of non-visual effects of light this was used rather than photons, but I agree that photons are more relatable to other fields. I will change this.
I am not 100% sure about the following:
you are using the unit quanta/(cm^2 * s) for photon flux density.
This is the same as photon irradiance
this is basically correct.
But I am not sure if quanta alone is correct. The term "quanta" alone may be clear to a physicist, active in assessment of radiation.
I am wondering if not photons/(cm^2 * s) would be better.
also possible:
number of photons/(cm^2 * s) or quanta of radiation/(cm^2 * s)
The SI unit would be 1/(m^2 * s)
The term "photon" or "quanta" is not a unit and is used only to make clear, what it is.
Earlier the term µEinstein or µmols has been used to express this quantity related to a mol of photons, but this is no longer supported by SI.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: