|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plasma (physics) article.|
|Plasma (physics) has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as GA-Class.|
|WikiProject Physics||(Rated GA-class, Top-importance)|
|Plasma (physics) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7|
- 1 Flames
- 2 State of matter
- 3 Removed ball lightning
- 4 Definition in Introduction
- 5 Comparison to the gas phase
- 6 What about the CRT
- 7 '...Even black holes' (disapprove of this description)
- 8 secondary plasma field
- 9 plasma field interaction to create motion
- 10 Nuclear Pasta
- 11 Contradiction?
- 12 A Conditions of Plasma
- 13 Heat transfer
- 14 Disputed - "Plasma is the most abundant form of matter in the Universe, because most stars are in a plasma state."
Unfortunately I can't edit this page myself. Too bad, but I hope someone will read this and do the correction.
In the "common forms of plasma" we have "Some extremely hot flames ".
First of all - the citation can be found in the "flames" article: 
Secondly, that citation doesn't claim that only "extremely hot flames" are plasma, but rather that ALL flames are plasma, including the flame of a candle: "What about fire? The flame of a burning candle is ionized, as we now know, and thus a plasma". So the article should be corrected by replacing "Some extremely hot flames" with "The flames of a fire (even candles)". 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that this should be fixed. There's a nice YouTube video called "Electric Flame" (linking to youtube is so complicated). It demonstrates that flames contain ions. Tadmuck (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
State of matter
I didn't see any citation for plasma being a forth state of matter. I came here looking for evidence of it but all I could find was a table that seems to be trying to show that it is a 4th state but it's not very convincing. Specific question I am left with: If gases become plasmas when they are ionized, why do liquids not have a separate state of matter when they are ionized? Calling plasma a separate state of matter seems premature since they are apparently still being heavily researched and it also seems like something self-important physicists would claim, hence why I am looking for the actual citations.
Also, why is this article restricted to (physics)? shouldn't it also have a (chemistry) entry or preferably none of these parentheses at all? esp. given its status as 4th state of matter it would be of interest to students of chemistry126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- "State of matter" is not such a well-defined concept that everyone agrees on what is or isn't a separate state, and consequently it isn't of central importance to the physical sciences. There is a disambiguation article on Plasma, without parentheses, but chemists will be interested in the same definition of plasma as physicists. Art Carlson (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Removed ball lightning
I have removed ball lightning because the page linked doesn't even say what it is, so we can't say it is plasma.
From the page:
Ball lightning is an unexplained atmospheric electrical phenomenon. The term refers to reports of luminous, usually spherical objects which vary from pea-sized to several metres in diameter. It is usually associated with thunderstorms, but lasts considerably longer than the split-second flash of a lightning bolt. Many of the early reports say that the ball eventually explodes, sometimes with fatal consequences, leaving behind the odour of sulfur.
Definition in Introduction
Not to nitpick but since this is a physics-related topic and a certain amount of "rigor" might be expected, I wonder if it might be more appropriate to say that plasma is a *kind* of matter, or *form* of matter; rather than a "state of matter." After all, plasma is an actual "physical substance" with mass, electrical charge, etc., it's not just a state, it's the actual matter itself. "State of matter" implies that Plasma = state - - but Plasma *is* matter. I only mention it since, like I said, it's a physics-related article and a certain amount of "rigor" might be appropriate.
- I think "state of matter" is more appropriate, similar to its use when describing solids, liquids and gases. They could also be argued to be "kinds" or "types" of matter, but we are describing the state of matter here. --Iantresman (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Comparison to the gas phase
In the section "Comparison of plasma and gas phases", the text reads that plasma ".. is closely related to the gas phase in that it also has no definite form or volume".
One of the characteristics of plasmas, is that it may indeed have both definite form and volume, eg. filamentation, the stars, heliospheric current sheet, etc. Should we reword, or find a different similarity? --Iantresman (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
What about the CRT
Does a cathode ray tube, or for that matter, any vacuum tube have a plasma? I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC) according to deffinition, yes. it is ionized gas--188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
'...Even black holes' (disapprove of this description)
Even black holes, which are not directly visible, are fuelled by accreting ionising matter. This is a weird assertion; that black holes are 'fuelled'. I cannot find any support for that idea in the reference either. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC) BGriffin
secondary plasma field
when a secondary plasma field is generated by the interactions of certain metals and the primary plasma field ,a wide variety of observable phenomenon,may be viewed.finer metals and meshes work the best as hard or dense metals absorb to much themselves. the particular interaction between steelwool and stainless steel and the secondary field should be done under controlled conditions, as the steel wool will combust. the interaction with carbon to absorb ,ie your radio station signal within a reasonable distance to secondary field 12 feet or more. a third plasma reaction with yet a third gas will definitely bring more interesting observation. Ronald sykes 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
plasma field interaction to create motion
With the use of a simple glass plasma globe,filled with various gasses,and the interaction with a non magnetic stainless steel mesh,wrapped over said globe, the interaction with the cosmic fields around us and outside earths vacume can be observed. with the use of common diodes and some newer materials ie. the new dimmer switches ,paired, a dual high voltage generator, a secondary evacuated gas tube,a 1 to 1 induction transformer and various arangements of capacitors,diodes and resistors, to create a varying field . this varying field effect will interact with a magnetic field,causing a varying flux, creating an observable up and down motion, if components are poised properly.although plasma interaction with the stainless steel requires a source of negative ions to perform the said function,this problem can easily be solved either by holding the ground source your self,as the human body is a type of plasma,the use of a ground wire to earth, or another source of non magnetic stainless steel.Ronald sykes (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The article refers to the electrons in a plasma as not actually being "free":
"It is important to note that although they are unbound, these particles are not ‘free’."
But the electrons are later referenced as "free electrons" here:
"The term "plasma density" by itself usually refers to the "electron density", that is, the number of free electrons per unit volume."
A Conditions of Plasma
Disputed - "Plasma is the most abundant form of matter in the Universe, because most stars are in a plasma state."
I was going to add a disputed tag, but I'll just post it in the talk page first and add it if I get no responses here. This statement says it is the most abundant form of matter, but I'm pretty sure that title goes to "dark matter" or "dark energy," which while not characterized well in physics, has for more mass in this universe than regular matter we can see. Since we can only see it's effects on regular matter it may have been discounted. Maybe a qualifier should be added, like excluding dark matter and energy, or "regular matter," unless there is a more suitable term. If you disagree let me know why it should be called the most abundant form of matter.Wgfcrafty (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)