![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please help to review Draft:Mutual energy theorem. If you do not wish to do an AFC review you are welcome to post an opinion on the draft's Talk page instead. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 14:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I propose we form a task force covering fusion research. I plan to ask some people to join this, including Art Carlson, FT2 and Tokamac. I think that fusion research is poorly covered on Wikipedia. This is a problem, because lots of people depend on Wikipedia for fusion information. Here are some examples of poorly written, badly cited or just no information articles on Wikipedia:
I spent a couple of days re-working the LDX article. This is an example of what I call a decent fusion article. (albeit it needs more details on modes of operations). From working on this article I have devised a format for these fusion articles. Here it is:
A couple of other misconceptions and topics that need to be clarified. This is just a few issues off the top of my head:
Plasma behaviors are also not proper explained or linked to relevant articles and devices:
Here is a shortlist of articles I would like to see fixed on Wikipedia:
Magnetic Confinement Fusion (MCF):
Tokamaks
Spherical Tokamaks
Stellarator
Levitated Dipole Experiment (LDX)
Magnetic mirrors
Cusped Geometries
Reversed field pinch
Quasi-Stable Structures:
Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF):
Direct drive ICF
Fast ignition ICF
Indirect ICF
Heavy Ion Beams ICF
Pinches:
Z-Pinch
Theta-Pinch
Dense Plasma Focus
Inertial Electrostatic Confinement (IEC):
Fusors
POPS
Penning Traps
Beams
Hybrids:
Magnetized target fusion (Field Reverse Configuration and ICF)
Magnetized Liner Inertial Fusion (Theta Pinch and ICF)
Magneto-inertial fusion (Short Lived Magnetic Fields and ICF)
Polywell (Cusped Geometries and IEC)
Dynomak
Screw Pinch (Theta Pinch and Z Pinch)
Bad/Junk/Fruitless Approaches:
I hope we can all work together to fix this vast lack of information. I think if we ever are to get fusion power, we will need to solve this issue first. I have even seen congressional staffers turn to Wikipedia as a source for background information. When it comes to fusion, we need to all improve our knowledge on the topic.
WikiHelper2134 (
talk)
16:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear physics experts. A draft about the AC Stark effect was declined at AfC as a the same topic as Autler–Townes effect and then deleted after no one showed any interest in it for over a year. To preserve the content I merged it into the Autler-Townes article and changed the original page to a redirect. I note, though, that there is some disagreement about whether these are the same or only related concepts. I am not a physicist, so if there is consensus among those who are more knowledgeable that each should have its own article, I will have no objection if the content is removed again from the Autler–Townes effect and the redirection removed from AC Stark effect. — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. In AfC, there's an article on the BFKL equation, which I think may be notable, but am unsure. The article needs to be re-written, as it is unclear whether it is about the authors or the equation, and make it more about the equation. The author has asked a question on my talk page. I could sure use some help on this. Thanks. Onel5969 ( talk) 14:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Non essential, and long time no see. If this has been pointed out before then apologies.
This seems to be a topic in itself and there are even specific journals dedicated to it (just a browse on google). Are there any main articles this red-link could point to? Or should it be an entirely new WP article (which I'm not inclined to write for now)? Thanks for any feedback. M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 16:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Equipartition theorem for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Jarodalien ( talk) 03:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
In the "High Potential Case", the first equation clearly needs to have some changes made, since its right-hand side equals 1 identically. The second equation may need some too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewman ( talk • contribs) 13:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
An IP editor is being troublesome at Binding energy and at Synergy, trying to directly equate the two. Would anyone like to opine at Talk:Binding_energy#Synergy? — Quondum 16:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Surprisingly, Wikipedia has no article on the basic concept of "size" ( Size is a disambiguation page primarily listing various kinds of size). I have therefore gotten a good way into a draft article on the concept itself, at Draft:Size. The concept seems relevant to this project, so I am making a note here in case anyone has any suggestions for the draft. bd2412 T 04:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Excellent addition to the encyclopaedia! Often the simplest things are the ones we most ignore. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 22:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Draft:Pulsed field magnet --> this is a draft for your consideration. Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 22:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The emdrive article is primarily based on non peer-reviewed, primary source research, mainly: [1] which is a conference paper. Conference papers are not generally peer-reviewed. The WP:RELIABLE standard is peer-reviewed secondary source research. There's also been some second hand reporting on some NASA websites; these also are not reliable sources for this kind of thing.
The editor User:Quantanew is putting material claiming that the research shows that flights to the outer planets are seriously on the cards, but has no reliable sources to back it up and is revert warring it into the article.
Most serious physicists think that emdrive is highly likely to be experimental error at this point, 750mN of thrust was shown, but not in a vacuum, while low power testing in a vacuum has shown only tiny thrust, which is highly likely to be experimental error, at least until we get reliably sourced, peer reviewed experimental data.
Much as I genuinely like possible new physics, we need to bring Wikipedia's strictest sourcing requirements to this article, it's just getting out of hand. GliderMaven ( talk) 23:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Quote from NASA Watch: "With regard to the Eagle Works EmDrive "warp core" research underway at JSC, NASA HQ PAO has told NASAWatch: "While conceptual research into novel propulsion methods by a team at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston has created headlines, this is a small effort that has not yet shown any tangible results. [2]. - BatteryIncluded ( talk) 12:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding an article that may be of interest to members of this project. Concerns have been raised that the article may be a hoax. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manahel Thabet. Thank you. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The article Atomic units does not indicate that there are specific symbols (other than, optionally, using the usual notation for natural constants). The article section Elementary charge § As a unit indicates that there was once a unit called the "electron", equal to the elementary charge, and that there is a relic of this in the electronvolt, including a relic of the unit symbol e in the unit symbol eV; it also indicates that the elementary charge quantity is often denoted e. I note that many of the articles on elementary particles use e as a unit symbol (nonitalic, though I was changing these until I realized this dichotomy). My question is two-fold:
My own guess is "no" on both counts. — Quondum 02:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
How, exactly, does a horn (the musical instrument) work? More precisely, why is it that air blown into the narrow end of a long, gradually conical metal tube comes out the other end with a sharp and highly amplified sound? Does the fact that the tube is wound in circles or other shapes, as with the Natural horn and French horn, affect the outcome? Cheers! bd2412 T 04:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject Physics,
The Wiki Education Foundation wants to know what it can do to empower editors who work on science-related content on Wikipedia.
If you're familiar with Wiki Ed, it's likely by way of our classroom program, which grew out of the Wikipedia Education Program and through which we provide support for instructors and students who work on Wikipedia as part of a class assignment. This post is about something different, though. We'll be continuing to develop that program, of course, but we also want to start working on ways to help the existing Wikipedia community directly.
In 2016, Wiki Ed will be running a campaign tentatively titled, "Wikipedia Year of Science". The goal, generally stated, will be to improve the content and coverage of science-related content on Wikipedia ("science" interpreted loosely). I'm trying to figure out what sorts of things we can do to accomplish that goal through the existing community rather than by bringing in new users. The question is indeed wide open, but think about it this way: we have staff and a lot of institutional connections; how can we use our resources and relationships to support you? For example, is there a special collection of photos we should try to get on Commons? What about a document archive? Databases or specific physics-related journals? Organizationally, is there software that could be built that would help people working on these topics? What kinds of research could we conduct or help to organize that would help you to work more effectively? What are ways we can connect you with other human resources -- experts, for example (though this is not intended to be an outreach program)? How could we motivate people to contribute, whether it be adding content, improving content, conducting reviews, adding images, improving sourcing, or any other part of the process? How can we get more physics articles to FA/GA? How could we help you to spend more of your time working on things you find fun and interesting and less time on process, organization, and functionary duties?
These questions are really just intended to get the ball rolling as this really is a nascent idea. So all ideas are welcome: big, small, obvious, obscure, ambitious, simple, technical, organizational.... I want to be clear that this is not just some survey -- the feedback I get will help to give shape to the "Year of Science" campaign.
I should also mention that this community engagement program we're starting isn't limited to the Year of Science campaign. Researching and planning is high on my priority list right now, but we can also talk about shorter- or longer-term projects you may have in mind, too.
Apologies for the long message and thanks for your time. Looking forward to hearing what you think. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 03:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC) (volunteer account: User:Rhododendrites)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for X-ray computed tomography to be moved to CT scan. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of most massive black holes to be moved to List of black holes by mass. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you make of Draft:Resistivity "Real Section" and Draft:Lieb–Oxford inequality? Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please help to review Draft:Mutual energy theorem. If you do not wish to do an AFC review you are welcome to post an opinion on the draft's Talk page instead. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 14:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I propose we form a task force covering fusion research. I plan to ask some people to join this, including Art Carlson, FT2 and Tokamac. I think that fusion research is poorly covered on Wikipedia. This is a problem, because lots of people depend on Wikipedia for fusion information. Here are some examples of poorly written, badly cited or just no information articles on Wikipedia:
I spent a couple of days re-working the LDX article. This is an example of what I call a decent fusion article. (albeit it needs more details on modes of operations). From working on this article I have devised a format for these fusion articles. Here it is:
A couple of other misconceptions and topics that need to be clarified. This is just a few issues off the top of my head:
Plasma behaviors are also not proper explained or linked to relevant articles and devices:
Here is a shortlist of articles I would like to see fixed on Wikipedia:
Magnetic Confinement Fusion (MCF):
Tokamaks
Spherical Tokamaks
Stellarator
Levitated Dipole Experiment (LDX)
Magnetic mirrors
Cusped Geometries
Reversed field pinch
Quasi-Stable Structures:
Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF):
Direct drive ICF
Fast ignition ICF
Indirect ICF
Heavy Ion Beams ICF
Pinches:
Z-Pinch
Theta-Pinch
Dense Plasma Focus
Inertial Electrostatic Confinement (IEC):
Fusors
POPS
Penning Traps
Beams
Hybrids:
Magnetized target fusion (Field Reverse Configuration and ICF)
Magnetized Liner Inertial Fusion (Theta Pinch and ICF)
Magneto-inertial fusion (Short Lived Magnetic Fields and ICF)
Polywell (Cusped Geometries and IEC)
Dynomak
Screw Pinch (Theta Pinch and Z Pinch)
Bad/Junk/Fruitless Approaches:
I hope we can all work together to fix this vast lack of information. I think if we ever are to get fusion power, we will need to solve this issue first. I have even seen congressional staffers turn to Wikipedia as a source for background information. When it comes to fusion, we need to all improve our knowledge on the topic.
WikiHelper2134 (
talk)
16:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear physics experts. A draft about the AC Stark effect was declined at AfC as a the same topic as Autler–Townes effect and then deleted after no one showed any interest in it for over a year. To preserve the content I merged it into the Autler-Townes article and changed the original page to a redirect. I note, though, that there is some disagreement about whether these are the same or only related concepts. I am not a physicist, so if there is consensus among those who are more knowledgeable that each should have its own article, I will have no objection if the content is removed again from the Autler–Townes effect and the redirection removed from AC Stark effect. — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. In AfC, there's an article on the BFKL equation, which I think may be notable, but am unsure. The article needs to be re-written, as it is unclear whether it is about the authors or the equation, and make it more about the equation. The author has asked a question on my talk page. I could sure use some help on this. Thanks. Onel5969 ( talk) 14:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Non essential, and long time no see. If this has been pointed out before then apologies.
This seems to be a topic in itself and there are even specific journals dedicated to it (just a browse on google). Are there any main articles this red-link could point to? Or should it be an entirely new WP article (which I'm not inclined to write for now)? Thanks for any feedback. M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 16:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Equipartition theorem for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Jarodalien ( talk) 03:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
In the "High Potential Case", the first equation clearly needs to have some changes made, since its right-hand side equals 1 identically. The second equation may need some too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewman ( talk • contribs) 13:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
An IP editor is being troublesome at Binding energy and at Synergy, trying to directly equate the two. Would anyone like to opine at Talk:Binding_energy#Synergy? — Quondum 16:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Surprisingly, Wikipedia has no article on the basic concept of "size" ( Size is a disambiguation page primarily listing various kinds of size). I have therefore gotten a good way into a draft article on the concept itself, at Draft:Size. The concept seems relevant to this project, so I am making a note here in case anyone has any suggestions for the draft. bd2412 T 04:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Excellent addition to the encyclopaedia! Often the simplest things are the ones we most ignore. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 22:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Draft:Pulsed field magnet --> this is a draft for your consideration. Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 22:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The emdrive article is primarily based on non peer-reviewed, primary source research, mainly: [1] which is a conference paper. Conference papers are not generally peer-reviewed. The WP:RELIABLE standard is peer-reviewed secondary source research. There's also been some second hand reporting on some NASA websites; these also are not reliable sources for this kind of thing.
The editor User:Quantanew is putting material claiming that the research shows that flights to the outer planets are seriously on the cards, but has no reliable sources to back it up and is revert warring it into the article.
Most serious physicists think that emdrive is highly likely to be experimental error at this point, 750mN of thrust was shown, but not in a vacuum, while low power testing in a vacuum has shown only tiny thrust, which is highly likely to be experimental error, at least until we get reliably sourced, peer reviewed experimental data.
Much as I genuinely like possible new physics, we need to bring Wikipedia's strictest sourcing requirements to this article, it's just getting out of hand. GliderMaven ( talk) 23:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Quote from NASA Watch: "With regard to the Eagle Works EmDrive "warp core" research underway at JSC, NASA HQ PAO has told NASAWatch: "While conceptual research into novel propulsion methods by a team at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston has created headlines, this is a small effort that has not yet shown any tangible results. [2]. - BatteryIncluded ( talk) 12:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding an article that may be of interest to members of this project. Concerns have been raised that the article may be a hoax. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manahel Thabet. Thank you. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The article Atomic units does not indicate that there are specific symbols (other than, optionally, using the usual notation for natural constants). The article section Elementary charge § As a unit indicates that there was once a unit called the "electron", equal to the elementary charge, and that there is a relic of this in the electronvolt, including a relic of the unit symbol e in the unit symbol eV; it also indicates that the elementary charge quantity is often denoted e. I note that many of the articles on elementary particles use e as a unit symbol (nonitalic, though I was changing these until I realized this dichotomy). My question is two-fold:
My own guess is "no" on both counts. — Quondum 02:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
How, exactly, does a horn (the musical instrument) work? More precisely, why is it that air blown into the narrow end of a long, gradually conical metal tube comes out the other end with a sharp and highly amplified sound? Does the fact that the tube is wound in circles or other shapes, as with the Natural horn and French horn, affect the outcome? Cheers! bd2412 T 04:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject Physics,
The Wiki Education Foundation wants to know what it can do to empower editors who work on science-related content on Wikipedia.
If you're familiar with Wiki Ed, it's likely by way of our classroom program, which grew out of the Wikipedia Education Program and through which we provide support for instructors and students who work on Wikipedia as part of a class assignment. This post is about something different, though. We'll be continuing to develop that program, of course, but we also want to start working on ways to help the existing Wikipedia community directly.
In 2016, Wiki Ed will be running a campaign tentatively titled, "Wikipedia Year of Science". The goal, generally stated, will be to improve the content and coverage of science-related content on Wikipedia ("science" interpreted loosely). I'm trying to figure out what sorts of things we can do to accomplish that goal through the existing community rather than by bringing in new users. The question is indeed wide open, but think about it this way: we have staff and a lot of institutional connections; how can we use our resources and relationships to support you? For example, is there a special collection of photos we should try to get on Commons? What about a document archive? Databases or specific physics-related journals? Organizationally, is there software that could be built that would help people working on these topics? What kinds of research could we conduct or help to organize that would help you to work more effectively? What are ways we can connect you with other human resources -- experts, for example (though this is not intended to be an outreach program)? How could we motivate people to contribute, whether it be adding content, improving content, conducting reviews, adding images, improving sourcing, or any other part of the process? How can we get more physics articles to FA/GA? How could we help you to spend more of your time working on things you find fun and interesting and less time on process, organization, and functionary duties?
These questions are really just intended to get the ball rolling as this really is a nascent idea. So all ideas are welcome: big, small, obvious, obscure, ambitious, simple, technical, organizational.... I want to be clear that this is not just some survey -- the feedback I get will help to give shape to the "Year of Science" campaign.
I should also mention that this community engagement program we're starting isn't limited to the Year of Science campaign. Researching and planning is high on my priority list right now, but we can also talk about shorter- or longer-term projects you may have in mind, too.
Apologies for the long message and thanks for your time. Looking forward to hearing what you think. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 03:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC) (volunteer account: User:Rhododendrites)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for X-ray computed tomography to be moved to CT scan. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of most massive black holes to be moved to List of black holes by mass. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you make of Draft:Resistivity "Real Section" and Draft:Lieb–Oxford inequality? Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)