Talk:Kubelka–Munk theory

Proposed merge of Diffuse reflectance spectroscopy#Paul Kubelka with Kubelka-Munk theory

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge on the grounds that the current structure is appropriate and readers would not benefit from a merge. Klbrain (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Not sure which needs to merge with which - new stub has ref to translation of key paper, and now two more refs, while existing section has more content PamD 08:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Why not let this article get filled in a little (with some material from Diffuse reflectance spectroscopy#Paul Kubelka) and then adjust Diffuse reflectance spectroscopy#Paul Kubelka with a wiki link to here. Maneesh (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, there should not be a merger of the two articles. The Kubelka-Munk theory was developed to better understand coatings, and spawned a new area of exploration. This subject deserves coverage in Wikipedia, but it is different from spectroscopic application of the mathematics. The article as written contributes little to the discussion. I can try to improve it, but I am not an expert in the subject of coatings, though I have done extensive work on the mathematics of diffuse reflectance spectroscopy. DJDahm (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I would really like to the material you want to add. I think what you said captures the idea, KM theory is so pervasive. I don't have a good enough comprehension of it to even start writing. Many of the tutorials I've found have been rather...opaque.Maneesh (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It would be great to get an abbreviated set of equations. Maneesh (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I've taken another shot here and will continue, but we could really use someone in each of these areas to describe the current status. I'm not that person.DJDahm (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I am against the merge. The short stub in DRS is completely adequate both for describing the relevance of K-M and for directing the reader to the K-M article for more information. --Artoria2e5 🌉 09:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"symbolism modified to reduce confusion"?

The formula appearing in the introduction uses "symbolism modified to reduce confusion." The modified symbolism seems to increase confusion, as the symbol for the absorption coefficient is $K$, and the symbol for the scattering coefficient is $S$. For some reason, these are referred to in this article as $a_{0}$ and $r_{0}$, respectively. I have worked in Kubelka-Munk theory for 37 years now, and have seen somewhat similar notation used in old, historical references, such as Amy's, but not in more modern works, such as Wyszecki and Stiles, and Berns. Further, using $a_{0}$ for $K$ introduces a notation collision, because $a$ is used extensively in the hyperbolic solutions of the Kubelka-Munk system of linear differential equations, where $a={\frac {K+S}{S}}$, and a related value, $b$ is defined as: $b={\sqrt {a^{2}-1}}$.

The formula used for reflectivity (the reflectance factor of an infinitely thick layer) is thus the simple expression:

$R_{\infty }=a-b$.

Using the "modified symbolism" has a domino effect, resulting in more complicated expressions and requiring a nearly complete revision of the canonical notation.

The case for changing the notation is unclear, and there is a case for not doing so. If there is a case for doing so, please make it. Thank you. 2603:7080:9600:A967:CA15:C795:60A0:76E1 (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)