![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Our article on kinetic energy is clearly a technical article. A large amount of useful information on these articles is provided at WP:Make technical articles understandable.
The lead section of the article on kinetic energy does not fare well when reviewed using the principles at “Make technical articles understandable”. Here are two of the violations I see in the lead section:
WP:Make technical articles understandable gives the following advice: “If an article is written in a highly technical manner, but the material permits a more understandable explanation, then editors are strongly encouraged to rewrite it.”
We should rewrite it. I’m interested in what other Users think, and what changes they might propose on this Talk page. I’m willing to start work on rewriting in a few days Dolphin ( t) 09:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
No objection has been raised to my proposed new lead section after a week so I will paste it into the article as the new lead. Dolphin ( t) 12:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
@ JoeNMLC I have reverted a change to add template Further information: Self-powered dynamic systems to the section "Kinetic energy of systems". The section is about internal kinetic energy of eg the Solar System. The referenced article is about systems that use energy harvesting internally. While there might be some overlap, the referenced article is not "further information" about the concept of kinetic energy.
If the kinetic energy article had an Applications section, the reference article might be linked there. (this would have to be a general purpose section with more than just the single application). Johnjbarton ( talk) 02:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
how Newton is related to history of kinetic energy?
It is classical kinetic energy and not whole classic Physics is produced by Newton. 79.202.40.58 ( talk) 07:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
(Follow up from a previous topic)
One aspect of the current article concerns me: possession of kinetic energy. As I heard it put one time: energy is not a magical fluid added and removed from objects. Rather it is a relative property, useful only by comparison. Objects have different amounts of kinetic energy depending on the reference frame. We humans assign kinetic energy to objects based on our analysis of the object's velocity relative to our chosen reference frame.
In one sense this is obvious: velocity is relative. Object's don't possess velocity, thus they cannot possess kinetic energy. The difficult part is presenting this naturally and clearly for an introductory audience and with sufficient reliable references.
I think such changes are important for this kind of article as noted in WP:OVERSIMPLIFY.
My proposal is to first develop a short section explaining 1) why kinetic energy is not an object property and 2) why assigning kinetic energy to objects is so darn useful.
And second to make small changes to the article to reduce the dependence on the possession model. For example, rather than
we might say
I will look for appropriate references first. Johnjbarton ( talk) 01:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Our article on kinetic energy is clearly a technical article. A large amount of useful information on these articles is provided at WP:Make technical articles understandable.
The lead section of the article on kinetic energy does not fare well when reviewed using the principles at “Make technical articles understandable”. Here are two of the violations I see in the lead section:
WP:Make technical articles understandable gives the following advice: “If an article is written in a highly technical manner, but the material permits a more understandable explanation, then editors are strongly encouraged to rewrite it.”
We should rewrite it. I’m interested in what other Users think, and what changes they might propose on this Talk page. I’m willing to start work on rewriting in a few days Dolphin ( t) 09:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
No objection has been raised to my proposed new lead section after a week so I will paste it into the article as the new lead. Dolphin ( t) 12:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
@ JoeNMLC I have reverted a change to add template Further information: Self-powered dynamic systems to the section "Kinetic energy of systems". The section is about internal kinetic energy of eg the Solar System. The referenced article is about systems that use energy harvesting internally. While there might be some overlap, the referenced article is not "further information" about the concept of kinetic energy.
If the kinetic energy article had an Applications section, the reference article might be linked there. (this would have to be a general purpose section with more than just the single application). Johnjbarton ( talk) 02:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
how Newton is related to history of kinetic energy?
It is classical kinetic energy and not whole classic Physics is produced by Newton. 79.202.40.58 ( talk) 07:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
(Follow up from a previous topic)
One aspect of the current article concerns me: possession of kinetic energy. As I heard it put one time: energy is not a magical fluid added and removed from objects. Rather it is a relative property, useful only by comparison. Objects have different amounts of kinetic energy depending on the reference frame. We humans assign kinetic energy to objects based on our analysis of the object's velocity relative to our chosen reference frame.
In one sense this is obvious: velocity is relative. Object's don't possess velocity, thus they cannot possess kinetic energy. The difficult part is presenting this naturally and clearly for an introductory audience and with sufficient reliable references.
I think such changes are important for this kind of article as noted in WP:OVERSIMPLIFY.
My proposal is to first develop a short section explaining 1) why kinetic energy is not an object property and 2) why assigning kinetic energy to objects is so darn useful.
And second to make small changes to the article to reduce the dependence on the possession model. For example, rather than
we might say
I will look for appropriate references first. Johnjbarton ( talk) 01:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)