![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Should the equation for Buckingham potential be presented? Should it even be mentioned except for a link in the see also? I believe that this should be cut because it doesn't really add anything about the LJ pontential and I don't see how something presented earlier(LJ) could approximate something presented later(Buckingham). If anything the Buckingham refined the LJ but since it is not very common that is questionable as well.
Phancy Physicist ( talk) 18:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
After working on this forever, I could never find the proper values to match a theoretical atom that would properly work within this formula.
Argon Values: sigma, σ 3.405 epsilon, ε 120 m 11
Source: http://inside.mines.edu/~dwu/classes/chen610/projects/Sp06/Barkley%20statmech2.pdf
I would like to suggest sharing this information on the wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.120.101 ( talk) 21:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
One of the figures in this article is a Rayleigh-Taylor instability. It is in the computational physics box, but it seems irrelevant to me for this article. Any suggestions here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.94.187.200 ( talk) 07:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: request withdrawn. Favonian ( talk) 21:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Lennard-Jones potential → Lennard–Jones potential – "Lennard–Jones" contains an en-dash (see for example the article Navier–Stokes equations as a comparison), and not a hyphen-minus as is currently in the article title. I tried moving the article manually, but there's already a redirection page to this article with that name. — Kri ( talk) 03:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
According to the first equation and the x axis of the plot being in units of sigma, the minimum of potential in the figure should be r_m/sigma (not r_m) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.99.102 ( talk) 02:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
To write "LJ" as an index for a potential V ist to name the potential (and LJ is a mere name not a parameter), so one should have upright indexes. May someone please change this. Jjh1993 ( talk) 14:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
When variables are first introduced, their units should be explicitly mentioned. To me, as an electrical engineer 'potential' implies that the unit is Volt, but I've even seen Lennard-Jones potential curves with a 'potential' in 1/cm. Could someone please add the correct units? I would do it myself, but I don't know what they are... -- Jkokorian ( talk) 10:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
σ and r_m are used in the LJ potential equations but later on in "Explanation", r_0 is used for the Buckingham potential without an explanation as to what it is. Is it σ, r_m or something else? r_0 is also used in "Alternative expressions", subsection "AB form" where is states that at r_0, V = − ε. This would mean, at least for this part, that r_0 = r_m and two different notations are used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvillatoro leal ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand how 1/r^12 may model a Pauli repulsion. I have searched INTERNET without results, then I have tried the formulae for H2 of Heitler-London for a such divergent term. Then I realized that the Pauli repulsion may only promote the electrons to the empty orbitals, resulting in a FINITE energy increase as r->0. I feel that the exponent 12 is chosen to override the 1/r^6 divergence in r=0 and reduce rapidly the potential to the physically sounded 1/r^6 as r increases. 151.29.78.113 ( talk) 20:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
A question: the two links named "Pauli repulsion" point to different articles. Is normal? 151.29.78.113 ( talk) 20:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Johnjbarton ( talk) 02:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I have rewrote the following section as it violated many of Wikipedia's policies. No original research and no personal opinions are tolerated. The reference provided (by Stephan et al.) does support these statements.
The current state of research of thermophysical properties of the Lennard-Jones substance is summarized in the following. The most comprehensive summary and digital database was given by Stephan et al. Presently, no data repository covers and maintains this database (or any other model potential) – the concise data selection stated by the NIST website should be treated with caution regarding referencing and coverage (it contains a small fraction of the available data). Most of the data on NIST website provides non-peer-reviewed data generated in-house by NIST.
If this author disagrees, please provide evidence that **explicitly** supports these statements.
A.Cython ( talk) 15:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I am ok-ish with the current version, which is a much improvement from the original version: "... the concise data selection stated by the
NIST website should be treated with caution regarding referencing and coverage (it contains a small fraction of the available data)." Clearly, from your responses, you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, so I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with its policies and how they are implemented. Note that I still disagree with some of the arguments presented above, but these are small potatoes that I will let other editors fix these issues. My immediate task was to fix the obvious. Also, regarding "The burden to demonstrate verifiability..." I have demonstrated that the original version violated Wiki policies. On the other hand, you have not proven most of your arguments nor why my changes were repeatedly removed.
A.Cython (
talk)
17:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
@ TimeStep89 added back a chunk of content I had deleted and put it in the Overview.
As I said in my edit summary, the material is just repetition. But I'm fine if you prefer this version over other ones in the article. The real problem is placement in the Overview section. The effect is to create an article within an article. Just for one example, the paragraph that starts:
clearly belongs in Applications.
The re-added material should be merged into the appropriate locations and the duplicate content removed. Johnjbarton ( talk) 15:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Should the equation for Buckingham potential be presented? Should it even be mentioned except for a link in the see also? I believe that this should be cut because it doesn't really add anything about the LJ pontential and I don't see how something presented earlier(LJ) could approximate something presented later(Buckingham). If anything the Buckingham refined the LJ but since it is not very common that is questionable as well.
Phancy Physicist ( talk) 18:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
After working on this forever, I could never find the proper values to match a theoretical atom that would properly work within this formula.
Argon Values: sigma, σ 3.405 epsilon, ε 120 m 11
Source: http://inside.mines.edu/~dwu/classes/chen610/projects/Sp06/Barkley%20statmech2.pdf
I would like to suggest sharing this information on the wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.120.101 ( talk) 21:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
One of the figures in this article is a Rayleigh-Taylor instability. It is in the computational physics box, but it seems irrelevant to me for this article. Any suggestions here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.94.187.200 ( talk) 07:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: request withdrawn. Favonian ( talk) 21:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Lennard-Jones potential → Lennard–Jones potential – "Lennard–Jones" contains an en-dash (see for example the article Navier–Stokes equations as a comparison), and not a hyphen-minus as is currently in the article title. I tried moving the article manually, but there's already a redirection page to this article with that name. — Kri ( talk) 03:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
According to the first equation and the x axis of the plot being in units of sigma, the minimum of potential in the figure should be r_m/sigma (not r_m) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.99.102 ( talk) 02:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
To write "LJ" as an index for a potential V ist to name the potential (and LJ is a mere name not a parameter), so one should have upright indexes. May someone please change this. Jjh1993 ( talk) 14:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
When variables are first introduced, their units should be explicitly mentioned. To me, as an electrical engineer 'potential' implies that the unit is Volt, but I've even seen Lennard-Jones potential curves with a 'potential' in 1/cm. Could someone please add the correct units? I would do it myself, but I don't know what they are... -- Jkokorian ( talk) 10:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
σ and r_m are used in the LJ potential equations but later on in "Explanation", r_0 is used for the Buckingham potential without an explanation as to what it is. Is it σ, r_m or something else? r_0 is also used in "Alternative expressions", subsection "AB form" where is states that at r_0, V = − ε. This would mean, at least for this part, that r_0 = r_m and two different notations are used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvillatoro leal ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand how 1/r^12 may model a Pauli repulsion. I have searched INTERNET without results, then I have tried the formulae for H2 of Heitler-London for a such divergent term. Then I realized that the Pauli repulsion may only promote the electrons to the empty orbitals, resulting in a FINITE energy increase as r->0. I feel that the exponent 12 is chosen to override the 1/r^6 divergence in r=0 and reduce rapidly the potential to the physically sounded 1/r^6 as r increases. 151.29.78.113 ( talk) 20:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
A question: the two links named "Pauli repulsion" point to different articles. Is normal? 151.29.78.113 ( talk) 20:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Johnjbarton ( talk) 02:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I have rewrote the following section as it violated many of Wikipedia's policies. No original research and no personal opinions are tolerated. The reference provided (by Stephan et al.) does support these statements.
The current state of research of thermophysical properties of the Lennard-Jones substance is summarized in the following. The most comprehensive summary and digital database was given by Stephan et al. Presently, no data repository covers and maintains this database (or any other model potential) – the concise data selection stated by the NIST website should be treated with caution regarding referencing and coverage (it contains a small fraction of the available data). Most of the data on NIST website provides non-peer-reviewed data generated in-house by NIST.
If this author disagrees, please provide evidence that **explicitly** supports these statements.
A.Cython ( talk) 15:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I am ok-ish with the current version, which is a much improvement from the original version: "... the concise data selection stated by the
NIST website should be treated with caution regarding referencing and coverage (it contains a small fraction of the available data)." Clearly, from your responses, you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, so I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with its policies and how they are implemented. Note that I still disagree with some of the arguments presented above, but these are small potatoes that I will let other editors fix these issues. My immediate task was to fix the obvious. Also, regarding "The burden to demonstrate verifiability..." I have demonstrated that the original version violated Wiki policies. On the other hand, you have not proven most of your arguments nor why my changes were repeatedly removed.
A.Cython (
talk)
17:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
@ TimeStep89 added back a chunk of content I had deleted and put it in the Overview.
As I said in my edit summary, the material is just repetition. But I'm fine if you prefer this version over other ones in the article. The real problem is placement in the Overview section. The effect is to create an article within an article. Just for one example, the paragraph that starts:
clearly belongs in Applications.
The re-added material should be merged into the appropriate locations and the duplicate content removed. Johnjbarton ( talk) 15:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)