User talk:Flying Jazz - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Greg L (talk | contribs) at 21:34, 14 November 2007 (→Helium spacing: redundant “look only” deleted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:34, 14 November 2007 by Greg L (talk | contribs) (→Helium spacing: redundant “look only” deleted)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome

Hello, Flying Jazz, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Misplaced Pages Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Hi, just wanted to drop you a line to give you the official welcome stuff, and to let you know your contributions aren't going unnoticed. Nice work on The Powder Alarm. :) Anilocra 08:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Very good work...

... on "Lex and Conc". Your thesis must be a breeze if you have time for this. I'll nominate it for "featured article", y'know, to get it on the front page and all, but first it needs a couple more references. The jury is tough on this. So if you used other sources, add'm and I'll keep an eye out. Sfahey 03:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC) (former "Middlesex League" H.S. athlete. It was neat to play games in Lex. and Conc., but like many teens, I didn't visit the battlefields until years later)

American exceptionalism

I think your edits to the article -- particularly my "long-winded" 'in historical context' section were rather superb. Your reorganization and rewordings were substantial and yet kept most if not all of the relevant ideas that I put out in rough form. You even categorized them by contexts - its exactly what the article needed, and what I had been a bit incapable of doing given my lack of objectivity and personal attachment to the draft. Regards, and happy editing - St|eve 07:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I'm not very attached to the topic, but I know it's an important one. Flying Jazz

Talk:Redshift

The deletion was definitely done by accident. My apologies. --ScienceApologist 07:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help on this page. Your contributions are invaluable. --ScienceApologist 18:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You forgot to sign your last comment at 17:22 - hopefully you're still wiki-ing so you can go back and sign it -- stillnotelf has a talk page 17:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you respond on the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#ScienceApologist page as to whether you think arbitration at this time is appropriate? I think your opinion would be most valuable. --ScienceApologist 14:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Emergy ship

Welcome aboard. My heart has lifted to know that you have taken an interest in the emergy paradigm. It's especially good to see that your thesis is in the area of metabolic engineering, that you have a math background, and that emergy has given you interest in exergy again. Before he died, H.T.Odum with E.C.Odum published a book with the bold title 'modeling for all scales'. Although my minor thesis was in philosophy I have been curious to see whether Odum's maximum "empower" optimisation principle together with the max power principle can be applied to modeling human metabolism. Although I am not the gatekeeper of emergy, I would like to say that any addition to the mathematical rigor, and energetic clarification of these sites would be greatly appreciated. I suspect that it would be very good to give some definitions not only in terms of math, but also in terms of analog electronic circuits. On this point, as I understand it, a central feature of Odum's approach was the use of the electronic concept of maximum power . There are people from the physics community who resist this understanding, and therefore wish to keep the maximum power page separate from the maximum power theorem page, which gives definitions in terms of electronic circuits. Sholto Maud 00:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Emergy & exergy

You may find benefit from looking at chapter 2 of Tom Wayburn's online text as you begin your rewrite. Sholto Maud 05:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: vandalism

Thank you for your message on vandalism. I am quite new to Wiki, and have been making all sorts of edits against the rules. These are innapropriate - hopefully, through observations like yours, I'll learn my way around better as time goes on. I have had only a small window of time to make the contributions that I have, so I may have been a bit hasty, clumsy, advocative, and vandalistic...I did not intend to be this way :/ and I realise there is a record of all edits.

I appreciate your efforts to improve the quality of the articles. They need it and I encourage yo further. I don't remember proposing a merge of the energy and emergy articles. I think they should be kept separate as you suggest, however it could be useful to have links from energy to emergy and emergy to energy. I also don't remember the requests being removed or me putting them back up. I do remember having some trouble making editorial editions on some occasions, maybe that was what was happening but I wasn't aware of it? I don't know.

As far as my merge proposal goes, when I read the energy article I find there is a level of inconsistency and confusion in the use of terms like 'energy form', 'energy type', 'energy kind' and 'energy quality'. On reflection I think my merge proposal was aiming to clarify the use of these terms. Perhaps it should have been more a specific proposal for a main article on "energy forms" - which could have some discussion of energy quality and exergy. I also noticed that the exergy article talked about "quality of energy types". I'm not sure what this is referring to. It seemed to me that it was talking about all of energy quality, energy type (potential and kinetic energy) and energy form, and so it seemed appropriate to have one article clarifying all these concepts and how they relate.

I'll remove the edits to these articles that I can remember making as per your request, however I'm not sure whether I should remove all the aritcles I have contributed also because I find it hard to see the distinction between my useful contributions and my vandalistic contributions. I'm a bit lost on what is vandalism and what is useful and good... Happy new year! :) Sholto Maud 03:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Periodic Table

Please accept my late words of appreciation. Thank you very much for changing the periodic tables in Misplaced Pages to conform with the IUPAC convention. I only noticed the problem, and I knew fixing it could be difficult, but you are the one to get the work done. The tables look fine now. Great job! -- Felix Wan 00:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Periodic table

Template:Periodic table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion#Template:periodic table. Thank you. (You are notified as a multiple contributor to the template.) --Eddi (Talk) 21:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Periodic table layout

Talk:Periodic table (standard) needs attention. Femto 13:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case: Historical revisionism

You have indicated that you are willing to accept an assignment as a mediator. I have assigned this case to you. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request, delegate it to someone else and update the case list accordingly. Before you begin the mediation please read the suggestions for mediators. You can also review earlier mediation cases to get an understanding for possible procedures.

--Fasten 11:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Enthalpy

Hi. I saw your comment in Talk:Enthalpy. I will read the "homework" you left em some other day. It is a long thing to read, and it is too late right now, and tomorrow I have to be in Jerusalem... eman 23:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

RfArb

Ian has started an arbitration process you may be interested in commenting on: WP:RfArb#Pseudoscience__vs_Pseudoskepticism. --ScienceApologist 12:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

New Thermo Template

Hello - could you look at the discussion page for the thermodynamics template? (HERE) - thanks PAR 07:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I agree with your points about the size of the things in the table, but i'm no designer and i only meant to allow the formulae to align correctly. In terms of sciences, i've done physics at university as well as others, but i still find that illustration, regardless of if "other boys and girls" are doing it, a good way of presenting information for easy visual reference. I still believe that encycopedic articles which are best, allow the user to read "from the ground up" on a subject, rather than assume that they are already knowledgeable on the subject.

In the long-run, i understand your concerns; when i was at university, many of the textbooks were just semantic and a nice easy table is still easier to read than a fancy one. However, while working with neuroscientists, like User:JCraw, it's a refreshing perspective to understand what makes information easier to "pick up and use", and this is where small things like those icons, can be surprisingly effective. They're not essential, but if we look at how our articles work in presenting[REDACTED] as a whole, it's important to try and make them appealing to users who are new to the subject matter, such as students. You never know, we may give them an insatiable quest for knowledge, or not.

Well, anyway. I apologise if i'm making a rather long-winded reproach, but i'm not a designer, and my HTML and design skills are very limited. Maybe someone from the usability project could help? James S 17:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thermodynamic equations

Hi - I recently completed a rewrite of the Thermodynamics equations page and there is discussion of whether it is appropriate. Your input would be appreciated. Please see

Talk:Thermodynamic equations#Rewrite
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics section "Your edits..."

Thanks - PAR 02:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:Somervillelogo.jpg, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. -- 19:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Lexington & Concord FA

Do you think the Battles of Lexington & Concord article should be nominated for Featured Article status? It looks very good to me, but I noticed the Military History WikiProject only rated it a B. Are there any known deficiencies that can be corrected? If not, I'd be happy to toss the nomination into the ring. Venicemenace 18:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for filling me in, and I'm glad that the WikiProject has such high standards. Although I can't promise to do so imminently, I might take this up as a project in the near future - I have at least a couple of the listed reference books in my collection, and find the battle(s) endlessly fascinating. Venicemenace 14:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, do you have any idea why that article is vandalized so persistently?! Venicemenace 14:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Enthalpy at T=0 under a perfect vacuum

Flying Jazz: I've been working for a long time on the Thermodynamic temperature article and have a question for you. A notable, respected, and well-published researcher, Daniel C. Cole, as well as others have long taken the position that ZPE contributes to the internal energy of a substance. The rational goes like this: inasmuch as the real-world effects that ZPE has on substances can vary as one alters a thermodynamic system (for example, due to ZPE, helium won’t freeze unless under a pressure of at least 25 bar), ZPE is very much a form of heat energy and is properly included when tallying a substance’s internal energy.

A consequence of this reasoning is that the formula H = U + pV should result in minimal enthalpy — not zero enthalpy — at absolute zero under a perfect vacuum due to the non-zero value of U (internal energy). However, I note that the definition of enthalpy is that it is the measure of “the ‘useful’ work obtainable from a closed thermodynamic system under constant pressure.” Accordingly, since no heat can flow out of a T=0 system, I deduce that in the context of calculating enthalpy, the U in the formula must exclude ZPE. Is that right? If so, then H = U + pV should equal zero at T=0 under a perfect vacuum.

I’m asking you because, notwithstanding what seems logical to me, you can authoritatively answer my question from a purely mathematical point of view. Please leave me a short note on my talk page (or e–mail me) to let me know that you’ve answered the question here. In advance, thanks. Greg L (my talk) 07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Flying Jazz: Thanks for your answer here on my user talk page. Accordingly, I believe the following, which is note #29 on the Thermodynamic temperature article, is correct and I won’t change it. I was thinking I might have to and that’s why I wrote you. The last part of note #29 reads—in part—as follows:

At T=0, these crystals have minimal internal energy (retaining only that due to ZPE), and in accordance with H = U + pV, also have minimal enthalpy under a perfect vacuum.

Note the last seven words. That’s minimal, rather than zero, due to ZPE. Thanks for your time, I very much appreciate your thoughtful answer. Greg L (my talk) 06:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Flying Jazz: OK. Check out note #29 now. Do you approve? Greg L (my talk) 17:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I included the citation to Alberty because it buttresses the assertion that internal energy may include or exclude many different terms. That seemed an important point to backup given the statement that enthalpy — under the stated conditions — may be either minimal or zero. Sorry you feel the article is cumbersome. I guess one's view of the article depends upon what one expects to get out of it and for what purpose. I've contacted many Ph.D. instructors at universities over the years I've worked on the article and two liked it so much, they linked to it on their curricula intranet for the benefit of their students. Again, thanks. Greg L (my talk) 23:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Helium spacing

Flying Jazz: I got your message regarding helium atom spacing. Naw, the 0.062 nm depth of the z-axis is actually a zero depth as far as spacing goes. You can only calculate inter-atomic spacing by measuring in 2D; you can't make a “volume” calculation in a frame just thick enough for atoms to slide by. I’ll expand on that…

The “spacing” of the atoms is the center-to-center distance between them. The 0.062 nm thickness of the pane is the space necessary to accomodate the thickness of the atoms with no space between atoms; it’s actually a “zero” dimension. In other words, we're now in the realm where the difference between the ideal gas law (assuming point particles) and reality (the particles have an actual diameter) matters 100% in the z-axis. In still other words, when examining spacing, the z-axis is zero depth. To properly examine the spacing of the atoms, we must at only the 2-D center-to-center spacing; that gives us the equivalent pressure. We just can’t make a 2-D animation match 3-D reality. If we look at the “frame” in the animation from a 3-D point of view (1.66 x 1.45 x 0.062 nm), then it would only have “pressure” (collisions and the imparting of kinetic energy into the container walls) on four of the box’s six sides. So the jump from step 10 to step 11 in the logic shown on Froth’s archive is correct. We mustn’t over-analyze this. The animation properly conveys the appearance of helium atoms at a pressure of 1950 atomspheres. Greg L (my talk) 20:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)