This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article. |
Does anybody know how to search for "Nuclear clock" without getting thousands of results relating to the "Doomsday Clock"? 174.25.58.172 ( talk) 02:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Please add /info/en/?search=Category:Atomic_clocks 71.80.203.159 ( talk) 05:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Ehrenkater: You write: "Isn't the outer shell ionisation energy more relevant?". Er, yes, that's what the first ionization energy is. It's the minimum energy required to remove an electron from the atom, which is obviously going to be an outer-shell electron. I didn't feel the need to belabour the point. Can you clarify your question, or perhaps I should say clarify your confusion so I can phrase things to not send a reader down the false trail you appear to have found?
Thanks for the editing help. By the way, I've noticed that you really like bulleted lists, which is fine, but I've also noticed you seem to forget to add a line break after the list so that the following text is not made part of the last item. It's a minor problem and easily fixed, but you might want to avoid it to begin with. 97.102.205.224 ( talk) 15:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
The first sentence of Nuclear_clock#The_history_of_229mTh is odd. It reads "Since 1976, the 229Th nucleus has been known to possess a low energy excited state,[31] the excitation energy of which was constrained to be 10 eV in 1990.[32]". I don't believe that anyone has the power to affect the excitation energy. Maybe it means "assessed", or "estimated"? Maproom ( talk) 07:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@
Cryolophosaur:
Special:Diff/1230170525 cites
WP:OFCOURSE when removing the word "obviously" from "Applications: When operational, a nuclear optical clock is expected to be applicable in various fields. Obviously, it may be used wherever today's atomic clocks are in operation, such as satellite-based navigation or data transfer. Its high precision would allow new applications inaccessible to other atomic clocks, such as relativistic geodesy, the search for topological dark matter, ..."
I'm wondering if this might be an exception to that general rule, or of there's some other way to phrase the idea. I'm trying to say "you could use it like any other atomic clock, but deep ultraviolet frequency combs are unlikely to be cost-effective unless you need the extra precision to measure..."
Alternatively, "the most trivial application is Yet Another Optical Frequency Standard, but the extra precision opens up new applications like..."
Or "In addition to everything atomic clocks are used for today, the nuclear clock's high precision would allow..."
The goal is to introduce the new applications of the extra timekeeping by saying "it's a perfectly good atomic clock, but I'm not seriously suggesting it'll displace existing technologies in applications where they're good enough." That's what the slight value judgement of "obviously" was trying to do. Kind of like "caviar, like all eggs, is a good source of protein, but you probably can't afford it."
My concern is that the reader will think it's WP:PUFFERY to baldly imply it's a useful general-purpose atomic clock, and the slight disapproval implied by the word "Obviously" actually returns the section to a WP:NPOV. Since that is the principle motivating WP:OFCOURSE, I wonder if an exception applies here.
Thank you for any thoughts you have on the subject. 97.102.205.224 ( talk) 17:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article. |
Does anybody know how to search for "Nuclear clock" without getting thousands of results relating to the "Doomsday Clock"? 174.25.58.172 ( talk) 02:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Please add /info/en/?search=Category:Atomic_clocks 71.80.203.159 ( talk) 05:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Ehrenkater: You write: "Isn't the outer shell ionisation energy more relevant?". Er, yes, that's what the first ionization energy is. It's the minimum energy required to remove an electron from the atom, which is obviously going to be an outer-shell electron. I didn't feel the need to belabour the point. Can you clarify your question, or perhaps I should say clarify your confusion so I can phrase things to not send a reader down the false trail you appear to have found?
Thanks for the editing help. By the way, I've noticed that you really like bulleted lists, which is fine, but I've also noticed you seem to forget to add a line break after the list so that the following text is not made part of the last item. It's a minor problem and easily fixed, but you might want to avoid it to begin with. 97.102.205.224 ( talk) 15:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
The first sentence of Nuclear_clock#The_history_of_229mTh is odd. It reads "Since 1976, the 229Th nucleus has been known to possess a low energy excited state,[31] the excitation energy of which was constrained to be 10 eV in 1990.[32]". I don't believe that anyone has the power to affect the excitation energy. Maybe it means "assessed", or "estimated"? Maproom ( talk) 07:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@
Cryolophosaur:
Special:Diff/1230170525 cites
WP:OFCOURSE when removing the word "obviously" from "Applications: When operational, a nuclear optical clock is expected to be applicable in various fields. Obviously, it may be used wherever today's atomic clocks are in operation, such as satellite-based navigation or data transfer. Its high precision would allow new applications inaccessible to other atomic clocks, such as relativistic geodesy, the search for topological dark matter, ..."
I'm wondering if this might be an exception to that general rule, or of there's some other way to phrase the idea. I'm trying to say "you could use it like any other atomic clock, but deep ultraviolet frequency combs are unlikely to be cost-effective unless you need the extra precision to measure..."
Alternatively, "the most trivial application is Yet Another Optical Frequency Standard, but the extra precision opens up new applications like..."
Or "In addition to everything atomic clocks are used for today, the nuclear clock's high precision would allow..."
The goal is to introduce the new applications of the extra timekeeping by saying "it's a perfectly good atomic clock, but I'm not seriously suggesting it'll displace existing technologies in applications where they're good enough." That's what the slight value judgement of "obviously" was trying to do. Kind of like "caviar, like all eggs, is a good source of protein, but you probably can't afford it."
My concern is that the reader will think it's WP:PUFFERY to baldly imply it's a useful general-purpose atomic clock, and the slight disapproval implied by the word "Obviously" actually returns the section to a WP:NPOV. Since that is the principle motivating WP:OFCOURSE, I wonder if an exception applies here.
Thank you for any thoughts you have on the subject. 97.102.205.224 ( talk) 17:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)