User talk:Chjoaygame

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Chjoaygame, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


Entropy of the universe[edit]

Could you please explain why you say here (edit summary) that the "entropy of the universe has no physical meaning"? Entropy is a physical property of any system, the universe is a system, therefore the universe has an entropy that you can compute, and this a well-defined number with a physical meaning...right?

As I'm sure you know, there are plenty of reliable sources that use "entropy of the universe" as the basis for the second law, e.g. [1]. Maybe you have some basis for saying these sources are wrong? --Steve (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly how to reply to you. I have written my reply in the discussion page. Please let me know if this was not the right way for me to reply.Chjoaygame (talk) 07:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"new" Swenson fan on entropy pages[edit]

Can you find online refs that single out the Swenson contribution to maximum entropy production theorems? There are at least 2 aliases claiming the MEP law due to Swenson is THE law of interest and my read on lit is much different. Thanks.

Thank you for your comment. You forgot to sign it with the four tildes. But I think you are Nerdseeksblonde? Thank you for pointing to access to the Physica Scripta 70: 212-221 (2004) paper by Mahulikar and Herwig. I will read it.

I am chasing up the works of Swenson. I have so far only one. I am sorry that it is in hardcopy form, twenty-four pages, not easy to send to you. It is Chapter 6 of a book Cybernetics and Applied Systems, edited by A.C.V. Negoit, published by Marcel Dekker, 1992, ISBN 0824786777. Pages 125-148, chapter title "Order, Evolution, and Natural Law: Fundamental Relations in Complex System Theory". It is at an introductory or popular science level. As well as an introductory account of the Benard cells, it contains discussions of Aristotle. I am a keen admirer of Aristotle, but he does not have very much specific to contribute to a detailed consideration of the present kind of problem in thermodynamics. This chapter contains nothing of interest to a serious student of the kind of problem in thermodynamics considered by Ozawa Ohmura Lorenz Pujol 2003 or Martyushev Seleznev 2006. The depth of analysis is not remotely even that of Onsager 1931 (I & II). I expect to get more of Swenson's works before too long. Indeed as I write, another arrives. It is an article in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 901:311-319 (2000), Spontaneous Order, Autocatakinetic Closure, and the Development of Space-Time. It says more or less the same things as Chapter 6 of Cybernetics and Applied Systems. Again, I expect to get more of Swenson's works before too long. Chjoaygame (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was expecting SineBot to do that LOL. The Herwig paper seems to be rather circular in analysis ( " Swenson confirms statement 1 of Swenson") and only comes up once AFAIK on gscholar. Curious to find out about the humboldt group- they sponsored that work and goog hits are largely their site, the MEP site, and wikipedia LOL. I'm still not sure what this principle translate into when trying to predict even qualitative behaviour of something. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The "orderliness" of the Benard cell structure derives from the "orderly" constraints, namely that the heat is supplied uniformly over the base and the base is flat and the upper surface is flat. Chjoaygame (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have accessed another Swenson reference. Swenson R. (1988). "Emergence and the principle of maximum entropy production: multi-level system theory, evolution, and non-equilibrium thermodynamics", Proceedings of the 32nd International Society for General Systems Research, page 32. This is a one-page flyer, with a general philosophical orientation, referring for example to irreducibility and emergence.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

welcome / hello[edit]

Hi Chjoaygame, I've noted your dispute with Ratel at Garth Paltridge's biography. I'll see if I can help there. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alexh. Thank you for your note here. It seems that Ratel has agreed to do, near enough, what I was asking for, and so I would say that we do not have a dispute. I am not trying to make further steps in relation to that. Thank you for your offer of help. Do you have some concerns that you think I should attend to?Chjoaygame (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alexh. Looking at your edit of the article on Garth Paltridge, I am not really sure that it was necessary or appropriate. I suppose it may be partly a matter of Wiki policy?Chjoaygame (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Specific radiative intensity[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Specific radiative intensity, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specific radiative intensity. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. UtherSRG (talk) 05:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Block notice 10-11-2011[edit]


You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 72 hours as a result of your disruptive edits to WP:Physics. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

This is interesting. What alleged disruptive edits are the basis of this anonymous block? What about these edits is alleged to be disruptive? Why is this block apparently anonymous? Is anyone responsible for offering reasons for an anonymous block of this kind?Chjoaygame (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I read at [2] that "Instructions for requesting an unblock will be placed on your talk page or in the block explanation. A quick way to see these and test if you are still blocked, is to click here which tries to edit the Sandbox. If you are allowed to edit the sandbox then your block has already expired or been lifted and nothing more needs doing." I did the test and as I read it the anonymous block has expired or has been lifted. I have not tried to edit an article since reading the anonymous block message, but I did successfully edit a talk page while the anonymous block, as far as I could guess, was still active.

I do not seem to find here the promised instructions for requesting an unblock. Please enlighten me.

The placement of the anonymous block has been and still is distressing to me and I feel I ought to be entitled to know who made it and why.Chjoaygame (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just now made a successful edit of a Wikipedia article, by which I reverted a possibly well-intentioned, but clearly mistaken edit.

I suppose this means that the above referred to anonymous block has now expired or been lifted.

That does not tell me who made it or why, and I still feel entitled to know those things.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You are being played by some jerk. According to your block log, you were never blocked. Now the same anonymous IP has left an attack at Talk:Planck's law. These are personal attacks. You have my support if you want to open a sockpuppet investigation. Q Science (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
This has been going on since quite a while. See for instance this by an IP — (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))— in the same range 128.231.77.*. It looks like you're being stalked. DVdm (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind help. This case may not be quite so simple. It surfaced in questions about the various statements first law of thermodynamics. I am of the view that the textbook statements of the first law of thermodynamics are predominantly that it explicitly names energy transfer as heat and work. There is another view that this is too detailed and that the law is really just a statement of the law of conservation of energy. My view is reached by looking at a range of textbooks. The other view is also supported by some texts, but I do not find them so reliable as the ones I prefer. This is a matter of opinion. Editor 128.231.77.* does not offer really thermodynamical reasons for his case. He offers reasons like "It seems intuitive that ..." His case is, I think, not enough to win the day, but as it happens, he got enough support to have his way, including support from heavyweight editors such as PAR and Kbrose, and I gave up the uneven struggle. There can be little doubt but that the various entries from this number are from the same person, so I suppose this makes it a sockpuppet thing, and now this looks like a stalking. But it has some elements that could be interpreted as reasonable objection to an old pedant who wastes others' time. I don't know what is the best thing to do. Perhaps ignore it and he will tire of it, perhaps chase it up somehow? I would value your further thoughts. Thank you for your kind attention to this.Chjoaygame (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Ignoring the technical aspect of this matter, and looking at the viscious character of the attack, I think that a 'bahaviourable case' could be made here, but I don't think that it would bring much food on the table, so to speak. I'm sure that the IP know that they are being watched, and I assume that they have got the message by now. Anyway, I have struck the opening message of this section. Note that you are free to remove it if you like. In fact, you can remove anything from your own user talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, DVdm. I will leave the record as it stands for a while, in case something turns up. Yes, I agree that it wouldn't bring much food on the table.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Black-body radiation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wiley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I have made the appropriate disambiguation.Chjoaygame (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Knudsen gas[edit]

Would your discussion of the Knudsen gas be useful as a stand-alone paragraph as a counter example to the H-theorem? It would need more development than as an afterthought dangling at the end of a sentence. Brews ohare (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this note. To be exact, the Knudsen gas is not a counter-example to the H-theorem. It is a case with a degree of practical interest in which the approach towards the Planck source function is slower, because there is less suitable matter available to transduce between radiative frequencies. I am not convinced that a longer account would survive in this environment. I do not want to invite a side-show with Waleswatcher.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Collisions are important as follows: When a ray of light of a given wavelength initially exists in a gas, if it is actually absorbed by a initial molecule it will quite likely leave that molecule excited until it collides with another molecule. That collision will lead to the distribution of that excitation energy in some way other than that of the initial molecule's excitation, perhaps lesser excitation of both ex-collision molecules or some other way. Those secondary excitations will likely lead to spontaneous emission at new wavelengths. The result is transduction of the initial ray's energy into different wavelengths. That is the collision way to thermalization.Chjoaygame (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Latent heat[edit]

I'm concerned about the condescending tone of your reply to Talk:Latent heat#Conflict and redundancies. Please try not to bite the noobs! Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

logic of the present form of the conservation of energy article[edit]

The logic of the present form of the article is that mass and energy are separately conserved when relativistic effects are not involved; this is a nineteenth century perspective. When relativistic effects are involved, mass and energy are defined differently for nineteeth and for twentieth century physics. The article is presently structured starting from the nineteenth century perspective, and the relativistic effects are considered as being developed from that starting point. It would perhaps be reasonable at some future time to re-structure the article so as to start from the twentieth century perspective. Then the lead would not need to give explicit advance notice that it was starting from the nineteenth century perspective.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You should probably read conservation of mass, mass in special relativity and mass-energy equivalence before complaining here. The short form is that there's not much need to restructure this thing, since mass by both definitions is conserved (meaning conserved over time) in special relativity, for any given observer, if you have an isolated system (nothing-- no energy/mass -- in or out). This includes relativistic mass (conserved but not invariant, since it is total-E/c^2) and it includes invariant mass (which is both conserved AND invariant). In SR, the only new thing is that (unlike in the 19th century) matter is not conserved, so you have a sort of conservation of (matter+energy) which is (very unfortunately) sometimes referred to as conservation of (mass+energy) by those speaking loosely who don't differentiate matter and mass, and who don't know that mass is a scientfic word, well defined in SR, but matter is NOT (either scientific OR well-defined). This confuses hell out of students of SR, along with the two different type of mass in SR-- and well it should.

Another source of endless confusion to students is the loose consideration of closed systems that are NOT isolated, so that energy is free to leak out (like heat or light) but matter is not. So you have teachers "explaining" to students that the split nucleus is lighter because mass has been converted to energy, which is totally wrong. It is lighter because energy was allowed to escape when the fragments were stopped/cooled, and the system wasn't isolated as that happened, so what do you expect? It lost mass as kinetic energy that was removed, and now is less massive (duh). But the lost mass (the binding energy or the atom bomb energy) just went elsewhere and shows up as mass THERE (where it went-- into the cooling water of the reactor). Mass continues to be conserved if you don't lose track of it.

An atom bomb is lighter (less massive) only when the products have been collected AND cooled (as Feynman notes), but then you're no longer weighing the heat and radiation, which do have a mass that escaped, and which they deposit on whatever cools the fission products and absorbs the gamma radiation and heat. And so on.

The last confounder is that single photons are massless (they lack rest mass) but they confer mass (both relativistic mass AND rest mass!) upon all systems of which they are a part. This is another confounder to students, who have a hard time believing that a pair of annihilation photons, as system, has a mass (yea verily, even a rest mass) even though each individual photon does not have a rest mass. But even the kinetic energy of any two particles moving away from each other has a system rest mass (and contributes to the system invariant mass) even though you can't locate it at either particle. It moves around according to the observer, but refuses to go entirely away, showing up as an irreducable minimum in the COM frame, which is where it makes its contribution to the system invariant mass (which the same as the system relativistic mass, in the COM frame). SBHarris 21:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am not about to try to re-structure this article. I was just offering a reason for reverting the edit, hoping that my reason would be conciliatory and polite and would dissuade the author of the edit from pursuing it further.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey[edit]

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Latest revisions to Thermodynamics[edit]

Chjoaygame, if you wish to revise substantially any article in Wikipedia you should give an adequate reason, perhaps presenting other authors a chance to agree or disagree in the talk pages. --Damorbel (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Damorbel, you seem to have taken upon yourself the office of policeman, prosecutor, judge and jury to dictate how I may edit in the Wikipedia. You demand that I give reasons for my edits in the talk pages. This is simply a captious demand by you, and has no proper basis. It seems obvious that you take this role as a way of responding to the fact that I accept the general consensus of Wikipedia thermodynamic editors that in physics, heat is technical concept that refers to a process not to a state, while you hold unflinchingly to your belief that heat should be treated simply as a word of the ordinary language that seems more or less to be able to be used for states as well as for processes, along with other ideas you have repeatedly expressed on this subject. If you wish to change my edits because you can improve them, that I see as your privilege. But you seem to regard it as your prerogative to simply dictate how I edit, and to undo any edit of mine that does not conform to your dictation as to how you think it should have been done.
This revision of mine was substantial only in your judgement, but looked at more objectively it was a rewording and more precise explication of what was already in the article, but not adequately explicitly.
Your stated reason for your undoing of my edit seems specious and irrational. Your stated reason is "The claim is that Themodynamics is empirical". Evidently your stated reason refers to this sentence in the article: "The macroscopic state variables of thermodynamics have been recognized in the course of empirical work in physics and chemistry.[1]" This statement in the article was not new in my edit, but had stood in the article for some long time. It is a precise statement directly based on a nearly identical statement cited in the article as from a well respected text by a respected Nobel Prize winner and a respected colleague of his. It is not my invention and is not new in this edit. The statement is not about thermodynamics in general as stated by you. It is about the finding of suitable state variables, which is stated by Prigogine and Defay, as cited, to be based on empirical work. If you had a real objection to this statement long present in the article, it would be odd that you express it only now that I repeat it unchanged. One wonders if you have really checked and considered what Prigogine and Defay have to say about this. This makes your undoing of my edit seem specious and irrational.
I regard your actions in this as simply violent and unethical.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Equilibrium Temperature[edit]

I finished a decent first draft of Equilibrium temperature that was based off of the stuff you deleted from Thermal Equilbrium today. I dont edit wikipedia that often, so this will probably be my last edit of the article for a while. I just wanted to give you a heads up since you seem to care about what was in it. The formatting needs to be more canonical, and the references need to be formatted, but otherwise I think its okay and hopefully other editors will turn it into something great. 16:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drxenocide (talkcontribs)

Thank you for this. I am not over-concerned about this article. Do as you please. I think it would be better entitled Planetary Equilibrium Temperature, since I think that is your concrete interest, and the real focus of the article, while the more abstract title Equilibrium Temperature is not your specific interest, and probably does not deserve an article of its own. My concern was that planetary equilibrium temperature is a specialized topic with a rather concrete focus, while thermal equilibrium is specialized topic in theoretical thermodynamics, rather far in its orientation from planetary processes, because thermal equilibrium in thermodynamics is very much about the theoretical side of thermodynamic equilibrium, an eminently static equilibrium, with at least one flow zero, or at least stationary, with a very particular local temperature, while planetary equilibrium temperature is very much about a process of massive flows with diverse local temperatures being averaged.Chjoaygame (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

What does this ...[edit]

.....contribute to the value of Wikipedia? Please refrain from this kind of comment. --Damorbel (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Your editing.[edit]

I would like to draw your attention to the Wikipedia help section on Disruptive editing

I have responded to your contribution here where I have asked you to respond. Contributors who do not (refuse to) respond to other contributors without good reason (e.g. - ignoring them) I highly likely to find themselves considered as disruptive editors. You have, at least once, announced that you intend to ignore my contributions. Further you have encouraged others to do the same. It is my understanding that your editing may well fall into the category 'disruptive'. If you recognise what I am saying as relevant I invite you to cease.

Feel free to comment, I assure you I will pay close attention to what you have to say. --Damorbel (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This feels as if you are trying to threaten me. The problem is that you have a fixed idea, not open to reason, apparently more or less involuntarily held by you, that you repeatedly and repeatedly try to force into the articles and talk pages, often by trying to hijack other lines of talk which are to some degree rational, your comments often being more or less at a tangent to the real questions at hand; and that your fixed idea is irrational and mistaken and contrary to the general thinking of the talk pages. So a fair amount of responding to your repetitive talk has shown itself to be futile. In a way, the problem seems to be that you lack the ability or will to pay close attention to what other editors say to you; rather you continue to try to impose your fixed idea no matter how other editors answer you. Logically, given only some of the above information, one might infer that the consensus of the other editors is mistaken, and that you are the only man in step. In the end, it is a matter of judgement.Chjoaygame (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"This feels as if you are trying to threaten me." That would be disruptive editing on my part; expand if you think so.

"The problem is that you have a fixed idea, not open to reason,". I have a lot of experience in thermodynamics, to me you are not familiar with the basics such as the Boltzmann constant and kinetic theory. Do you think the Boltzmann constant and kinetic theory are related to heat?

"often by trying to hijack other lines of talk ". That would be disruptive editing on my part; expand if you think so.

"So a fair amount of responding to your repetitive talk has shown itself to be futile." If I don't get a consistent answer, how am I to change my position?

"your fixed idea is irrational and mistaken and contrary to the general thinking of the talk pages." That is what you say but you should respond with a technical explanation, not, as here, "your fixed idea... ...the general thinking of the talk pages", which is probably disruptive editing according to the Wiki help pages.

"one might infer that the consensus of the other editors is mistaken". This seems to be your significant problem. What I read here is:- "A couple of my friends agree, so I am right." Further "I know nothing about the energy of particles, so the matter is not relevant and I won't discuss it."

Have a nice day. --Damorbel (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Chjoaygame, I understand your contribution here amounts to refusing or avoiding the consensus buiding, so I regard it as disruptive editing. --Damorbel (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Chjoaygame, I understand your contribution here as a a comment on me rather that a contribtion to Wikipedi, thus it is to be considered as disruptive editing. --Damorbel (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

AfD on Quantum thermodynamics[edit]

Your views in this AfD on what to do with the article Quantum thermodynamics would be useful, I think. Jheald (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this note.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Incivility and personal attacks[edit]

Chjoaygame, I am spending my valuable time trying to improve the articles I edit, most of which are on topics I have considerable expertise in as a professional physicist. My actions are always in good faith, and your continual rude remarks and personal attacks - both on me and other editors - have reached a point that I feel I should warn you about them. They create a poisonous and unconstructive atmosphere on the talk pages of the articles you edit. If they continue I will report your behavior to an administrator, who could take actions including suspending or blocking you from editing wikipedia. For now, I suggest you read WP:PA and WP:AFG. Waleswatcher (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Your revision today[edit]

Chjoaygame you made these changes without responding to my contribution here. I would like to discuss the matter with interested contributors on the relevant talk pages before any changes are made. That is why I 'undid' your changes. OK? --Damorbel (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


...I would like to know what the citation actually says. Thanking you in advance. --Damorbel (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Meteorology? Metrology?[edit]

Say Chjoaygame, I notice in your latest intervention ( ) you introduce a reference to meteorology. Are you aware that meteorology is (normally) considered as the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere.? I suggest that your contribution may have been intended to refer to metrology which is the science of measurement.

I have put this comment here to save you embarrassment in case you made a simple mistake and never checked what you were saying. If you agree I will let you make the necessary changes! --Damorbel (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Damorbel, if you had read more carefully, you would have seen that I did not introduce a reference to meteorology. I split the sentence which has for a long time stood in the article, which already referred to meteorology as well as to calorimetry. I split the sentence to show how calorimetry and meteorology differ when they speak of latent heat. No change is necessary or appropriate. Thank you for your care.Chjoaygame (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, OK. But then could you please explain to me what is the special position of latent heat vis-a-vis the science in your link to meteorology? --Damorbel (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
As the entry says, in strict physics, latent heat refers to transfer into a closed system, but in meteorology, into an open system.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
into an open system? Really?
But what is in the article at present is:-
In meteorology, the term latent heat involves transfer of matter as well as of energy, and is properly regarded as transfer of internal energy rather than of heat as defined in physics.
which is complete rubbish since there is no way what you describe is confined to meteorology. Not only that, the word "meteorology" appears in the article only in the opening statement, which is going to leave the reader very puzzled (as I am!) indeed. --Damorbel (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thermodynamic equilibrium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sydney Chapman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that notice. In response, I have fixed that link.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you respond....[edit]

Chjoaygame, why don't you respond to contribution on talk pages? --Damorbel (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Further to my remark above, I would like to draw your attention to the Wikipedia talk page guidlines, particularly the line:-

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page.

And the section on good practices

Regards --Damorbel (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I respond to contribution on the talk pages when I think I have something useful to say, but not otherwise.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand that you do not want to discuss your (or my) contributions but ths is not a private matter for you to decide. I draw your attention to this page about misuse of BRD where it says:-
You may not make one bold edit after another or a series of reverts without attempting to discuss why you did that.
I do think you should change your position (restated above) of not responding to my contributions about your edits, please !
Regards. --Damorbel (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I respond when I think I have a useful response to make.Chjoaygame (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest that, from the Wiki standpoint, no response is not an option for you. No editor works alone, there has to be some attempt at consensus and the talk pages are where consensus is established. A long winded opinion with obscure quotations just degrades Wikipedia. Please follow editorial guidelines. --Damorbel (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Noted.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Your revision (today) of the Temperature article[edit]

You have made a revision today [[3]] What do you mean by :-

For a material in which there are freely and independently moving constituent particles, the temperature is proportional to the mean translational kinetic energy of those particles,?

I made an edit to extend the introduction, which refferred previously only to ... an ideal gas, the constituent molecules do not show internal... to include all gases liquids and solids.

The point being that the particles of "...liquids and solids..." are not moving freely, they are, as are many gases and vapours, constrained by interatomic forces, that is why they are liquids, solids etc.

Now you have changed it to :-

For a material in which there are freely and independently moving constituent particles, the temperature is proportional to the mean translational kinetic energy of those particles

Why do you write that the particles must be "freely and independently moving ... "? Neither solids nor liquids nor gases with composite molecules have "freely and independently moving ... particles", yet they all have a measurable temperature that is just the same for all particles in eqilibrium conditions, indeed that happens to be the main theory behind the triple point cell. --Damorbel (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see the talk page.Chjoaygame (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

James Jeans? 1904?[edit]

[4] So I got it wrong did I? So by 1940 he changed his mind did he? Chjoaygame, you are doing it again with your insinuations. If you are saying I got it wrong then why did you not cite like I did? If you merely imply, as you did, that I was incompetent, what you have written becomes an random personal attack.

If indeed James Jeans changed his mind between 1904 and 1940 (I cannot find a 1940 edition of "The Dynamical Theory of Gases". Perhaps you are thinking of "An Introduction to the Kinetic Theory of Gases" which was published for the first time in 1940; perhaps you have been looking in the wrong book ... ! Let me know when you have looked in the book I referenced, I did give a link. --Damorbel (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of the article.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you ....[edit] to say what this is all about? --Damorbel (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I have improved the expression with the aim of making the entry self-explanatory.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Antivandalism: your are doing it wrong[edit]

Notice that today’s cumulative diff[5] shows two junk characters left after your intervention in conservation of energy. It is quite harmless in this concrete case but, generally, such modus operandi could have adverse consequences for articles’ quality. There are two good ways to remove several sequential bad edits:

  1. Open the editing form (action=edit) on the last good version and save it without modifications;
  2. Request the WP:rollback feature: with your 3,645 edits it will not be hard to acquire.

The thing you should never do is pushing the Edit button on a version left after purely damaging edit(s) – remember it, please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your well-intended advice. Perhaps it should, however, have been directed to the anonymous editor,, who made the error to which you advert. I did not notice the junk characters. So I did not remove them. Neither did I put them there; they were put there by anonymous editor . Yes, it would have been better if I had inspected things more closely and done it differently. I didn't and routinely don't push the 'edit' button on a version left after a purely damaging edit. This time, my intervention was just to copy back in the pointer to the diagram file that he apparently inintendedly left out.
Nevertheless, it is useful for me to note your method, of saving without modification the last good version.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Schrödinger's What is Life?[edit]

Hello. Could you have a look at the article What is Life? concerning Schrödinger's little book? Yesterday someone changed a sentence in the last section (Schrödinger's "paradox") from "The increase of order inside an organism is more than paid for by an increase in disorder outside this organism." to "The increase of order inside an organism is exactly paid for by an increase in disorder outside this organism." My initial reaction is that it was correct the first way, from the second law ΔSuniv = ΔS + ΔSext > 0, so ΔSext > -ΔS. However I am hesitant to change it back as I am not used to thinking about open systems. What if the process considered is just a re-definition of the system boundary, as when the organism eats a part of the environment? What if the process is reversible? I would appreciate your comments (preferably on the article talk page) as an expert in the fundamentals of thermodynamics. I have unfortunately misplaced my copy of Schrödinger's book so cannot check what he actually said. Dirac66 (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok.Chjoaygame (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Dirac66 (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Intensive and extensive properties[edit]

Hi. I may have been too harsh at Talk:Work (thermodynamics). I am now having trouble with the same Kbrose - see Talk:Intensive and extensive properties. Dirac66 (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this kind message.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

First Law of Thermodynamics[edit]

For changes this large to such an important article, you need to consult the talk page first. Thank you. EzPz (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, Editor ParksTrailer. The definition of heat for open systems, as relevant for one way of stating the first law for them, has been the subject of an unusually long discussion on the talk page of the article on Conservation of energy. That discussion was in the context of talk on the material in the present article on the first law of thermodynamics; this discussion moved to the conservation of energy talk page because there were only two contributors, Editor PAR and myself, and it seemed easier to conduct a single discussion about a single matter. The new material in the present article, which you have undone, was the result my further investigation of sources following the Conservation of energy talk page discussion. Thus the material you have undone has been the subject of long discussion, and follow-up investigation of sources.
If you or any other editor have something to contribute to the discussion, it will be good to hear it.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Personal remarks[edit]

I notice you 'undid' a contribution of mine with the remark:-

(Undid revision 564794681 by Damorbel (talk)restored version by DavRosen; he did not attack, he tried in a very kind and friendly way to be helpful.)

I do think this personal stuff if unsuitable for Wikipedia, possibly OK in a blog. But Wiki discourages personal opinions, at least as far as editing goes. So let's cut it out, shall we? Other than the edit was by me you identified nothing in the article. --Damorbel (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Damorbel, sorry to disappoint you, but Wikipedia does not discourage personal opinions at talk pages and in edit summaries. Concentrate on the problem with definitions, and do not distract yourself to WP:Lawyering. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
See WP:FOC. Apteva (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Gender free language[edit]

I was glad to see the statement

I always like to see that the neutral pronoun "they" is used instead of the native English speakers' 'he', because political correctness is most important for me.

at Talk:Heat but was curious to see farther on "as he seems to have done", "his opinions" and "he seems". I am not a he, I am not a she, and prefer to be referred to as "he or she", "they", or any other gender free construction. If you could kindly correct that I would be most thankful. Thanks! Apteva (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify what an admin is, they are simply editors the same as any other editor, but have been entrusted with a particular set of tools that allow them to delete and restore articles, and block and unblock editors, among others. All of those actions, though, are taken using community guidelines that are determined by all of us, not just the admins. Apteva (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I would be impressed if you had given any hint that you were likely to do anything other than support and encourage further depredations by "the editor in question". Am I to suppose from the above that you are now in fact an "admin"? Your user page didn't say so. If you are not a he or a she, perhaps you are an it? Perhaps actually a robot? A robot which I should treat with deep respect, even reverence?Chjoaygame (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not an admin, but I do know what they do.
See the above "I always like to see that the neutral pronoun 'they' is used instead of the native English speakers' 'he', because political correctness is most important for me." It is important to me as well. "It" while it could be construed as a sign of disrespect, is greatly preferred to any gender specific word. All I am saying is if you like to see neutral pronouns, even to the point of calling political correctness "most important", why would you use gender specific ones yourself? Apteva (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
If you are not an admin, how come you removed from our talk page he notice about banning "the editor in question"? Does this mean the question of the ban is still active?Chjoaygame (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
See WP:Talk page guidelines. No one owns talk page entries and can be removed by any editor if necessary. That sort of notice belongs only on that editor's talk page and no where else. It isn't "our" talk page, it is the talk page used to discuss improvements to that article, and nothing else. Complaints about editor conduct go on that editor's talk page and at WP:AN or its sub-pages, such as WP:ANI or WP:ANEW. The "rule" (policy) is focus on the topic, not on the contributors. WP:FOC Apteva (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for this explanation. It then puzzles me, how would I have known that there was a request to ban without the notice appearing on the article talk page? Of course I want to focus on the topic, but when there is a dust-storm, one can't see the landscape, no matter how much one would like to, or how many wise men are advising one to focus on it. I saw that you had removed the notice from the talk page, and the wording of your removal, and also your comments, which offered your views about expertise. Reading those things, being a topic-focused fellow, not a Wikilawyer, I mistakenly read your cover note on your removal as saying that it had been decided that the request to ban was inappropriate, because the editor in question was an expert. I was mistaken, it was only the notice on the article talk page that you determined was inappropriate; apparently you can make a deletion like that without any explanation on the talk page, with only the two ambiguous words "not appropriate" as cover note. As I see it, this means that someone who is affected by this problem, who did not follow the talk page on the relevant few days, and is focused only on the article contents, would remain in ignorance of the request to ban. The idea that complaints about an editor's conduct can be restricted to that editor's talk page and to WP:AN and its subpages is probably not one on which I can safely comment in the presence of a Wikilawyer.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, if they are not giving you a problem, there is no need to do anything. If they are, the first place to check is that editor's talk page. Discussions at the various notice boards such as WP:AN must be notified on that user's talk page. If anyone wants to watch the reports at WP:AN for all editors, they can certainly watchlist that page. Currently there are 3,747 editors who have done that, and are watching that page. Many, though, have long ago stopped editing, so that number is very inflated. Apteva (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban[edit]

Both of those statements, now hatted, at Talk:Heat were written before the thread at WP:AN had closed, but it did an hour or so later inevitably close with the imposition of a topic ban. The way topic bans work is they are dished out if someone is interfering with normal discussion and article development. We do not place notices on the pages affected of the topic bans but put them either in a central location and/or just on the user's talk page. I am certain that if the editor in question forgets about or otherwise breaks the topic ban that will be noticed by someone, and any admin can be notified, or a notice placed at WP:AN/I. They can not in any manner discuss the topic of thermodynamics until the topic ban is lifted. Apteva (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think, Damorbel may discuss it at own user_talk with whatever people willing to come there. But certainly not at talk:Heat anymore – is it so bad? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
They can ask for that permission, and I will ask for that for them, but right now the answer is no. Apteva (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
For a permission for which of two talks? Could you express thoughts less ambiguously? I’d unhappy to see Damorbel interfering again to conversations of our thermodynamicists. Surely Chjoaygame will be bothered. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The current topic ban is

from all edits related to thermodynamics, broadly construed. Note that topic bans apply to all spaces on Wikipedia--article space, talk space, user space, etc.

This includes all article talk pages and all user talk pages. It does not say "user talk space", but that is implied unless specifically excluded in the topic ban whenever "user space" is included. I have asked that it be amended to exclude "the users own user space", which would mean their user page, their user talk page, and any subpages they chose to create. I do not see any way that it is going to interfere with anyone if they write anything they want in their own user space. All of us are completely free to completely ignore it, and if they do see something that we should fix, they are welcome to point that out to us, but only in their own user space. Apteva (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Second law of thermodynamics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sadi Carnot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Radiative equilibrium[edit]

Please discuss changes at talk page before you revert. Also suggested to merge with radiative balance, input? Thanks. Prokaryotes (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin[edit]

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Heat may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • the hotness and coldness of a body are qualitative terms which can only refer to temperature.”[2]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for this.Chjoaygame (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Prigogine_and_Defay_1954 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ [[Bryan, G.H. (1907), pp. 4–5.

Thermometer, lede closing sentence[edit]

Hello. I certainly would'nt dare arguing my style is so fully accurate that it could'nt stand questioning but I think you're mistaking bombastic with pleonastic. Didn't you write besides yourself: "self-promotion per se is forbidden in Wikipedia". Such "as we will see below now" narratives are not informative and imho relate quite a bit to Manual of Style: Instructional, and presumptuous language, so they should be avoided generally. --Askedonty (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Askedonty, I am sorry you feel the ending phrase of the sentence is presumptuous. I read it as a signpost to more detail in the body of the article, not as advocacy for the merits of those details. I have removed the signpost. I feel what you put in its place was an elaborately emphatic expansion of the initial clause, that hardly added meaning.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to put you in contact with someone[edit]

Hi Chjoaygame,

I realize this is a bit unusual, but I would like to put you in contact with someone. I spoke favorably of your knowledge of Whitehead to someone I know -- himself a Whitehead scholar of some repute. He read some of our conversation and was impressed by your scholarship.

I look forward to hearing from you. Best, Joseph Petek (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this kind information.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Banned user[edit]

If you have evidence that Damorbel is violating his ban by editing as User:, the appropriate action would be to file a sock-puppet report at WP:SPI, so that the edits can be investigated. The article talk page is not the right place [6]. Spiel496 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this. He says he is not Damorbel. I tried to find the edit to which he referred, but it became very time consuming and I didn't find it. At present, rightly or wrongly, I believe his statement that he is not Damorbel, but I don't feel confident about that. Whatever. He has not posted further. I have a feeling he may be another editor unknown to me. Lightning is a terrible example to put in the lead of temperature, because it is not obvious that the situation is regular and steady enough to make all thermometers agree about temperature. It might be so, but more research is appropriate to find a truly reliable source. I wouldn't trust NASA to be a reliable source on that point. The radiative temperature might be easy to estimate, but the kinetic temperature might be almost impossible to measure, and perhaps does not exist. Reading the instructions for WP:SPI, I think I do not have enough to file a report.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Iontophoresis and electrophoresis[edit]

Dear Chjoaygame, I saw you contributed to the article iontophoresis. I don't have a strong background in neurology and other application fields of this technique, but I do know quite a bit about electrokinetic separation methods like capillary electrophoresis. To me, it appears that different fields use the jargon differently, which gives rise to some confusion.

According to your edits, iontophoresis + electro-osmotic flow = electrophoresis, where iontophoresis = the motion of particles/ions relative to a fluid under the influence of an electric field.

In my field, electrophoresis + electro-osmotic flow + a few other phenomena = electrokinetics, where electrophoresis = the motion of particles/ions relative to a fluid under the influence of an electric field.

To make things worse, electrophoresis is also used as an umbrella term for several electrokinetic separation methods (there is a scientific journal dedicated to them called "Electrophoresis"), while on the other hand the term (capillary) electrophoresis is used when (capillary) zone electrophoresis is meant.

Perhaps you have some ideas how potential confusion can be avoided. Kind regards, 2001:610:1908:C000:4198:9C74:168B:9A3 (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable remarks.
It seems perhaps hard to know how to deal with this. The early papers talked simply about electrophoresis and movement of matter driven by the application of a voltage. Then, as I recall, people wanted to point out that only ions are directly driven by voltage gradients; so they talked specifically about iontophoresis, I think referring specifically to the motion of ions directly due to voltage gradient, aka electric field. Uncharged and other charged species are secondarily or indirectly moved by consequences of the iontophoresis, because when the ions move, they alter the osmotic strength, and this leads to osmotic flow of solvent such as water. The latter is electroosmosis. It carries with it charged and uncharged species, not due to electric field, but due to concentration gradients and momentum of bulk flow. The combination of iontophoresis in the above sense, with electroosmosis in the above sense, is transfer of various substances, ultimately driven by electric field or voltage gradient, but not necessarily directly so. In this reading, electrophoresis refers to the primary driver, regardless of whether it is acting directly or indirectly and of the charge sign or absence of charge of the transferred species. Thus electrophoresis is a broad inclusive term. As I read it, iontophoresis refers specifically to transport of charged species due directly to electric field. Of course, such motion is a form of electric current, transporting electric charge. The current can be driven by an externally imposed ideal current source, but that works by setting up just the right electric field to produce the desired current. But the current can be carried by various diverse species, and the current of the transported species of interest is not necessarily the same as the current imposed by the externally imposed ideal current source. That is why I prefer to think of iontophoresis as driven by voltage gradient.
Perhaps some more thinking is needed about this?
With respect, it is handy if Wikipedia editors use a handily and easily readable account name. So far as I know, there is no risk of security problems with that. One can choose a name that completely protects one's anonymity. I think it is a good idea.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply! You are right, an IP6 adress is not very convenient, so I have logged in to my old account, which I didn't use for years.
The problem arises when you link to the electrophoresis article, which essentially explains the mechanisms of what you call iontophoresis. I think there are three choices: 1) we can drop the sentence the combination of iontophoresis and electro-osmosis is called electrophoresis or 2) we explain that within biological research and therapeutics the term "electrophoresis" is used differently from what is explained in the article electrophoresis or 3) we alter the article electrophoresis to explain the different uses of the term.
With the latter two options, we need to find appropriate references in the scientific literature, which is not simple because this problem is multidisciplinary.
By the way, also the term electro-osmosis appears to be used differently. The way you use it makes intuitively most sense. But in separation science, electro-osmotic flow refers to a bulk flow caused by the movement of counterions along charged walls, dragging the fluid in capillary under the influence of an electric field. I don't think this really is an osmotic process but rather a matter of viscosity effects ("viscous coupling") but still everyone in the field calls it electro-osmotic flow.
Kind regards, Josq (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for this. I do not intend to make a project of maintaining this article, so I will not try to provide the right solution to this problem. Since the article is not labeled as being about electrophoresis, I find no problem with your suggestion to delete the sentence in the lead "The combination of iontophoresis and electro-osmosis is called electrophoresis." For definiteness I have now done that. I don't think it calls for a change of the two references. If you think I have done the wrong thing there, please go ahead and do what you think is right. I am happy to chat further about this if you wish, but for the present I have to say that I am about to move my computer to another location and this is likely to put me off the air for some week or so, I cannot predict. So if I don't reply, it's not because I am not interested but is because of the move.Chjoaygame (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Over time, I hope to make some modifications to electrophoresis-related articles and possibly we will meet again by then. Again, thank you for considering my opinions! Josq (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Conservation of Energy[edit]

I noticed that you are an active contributor to Conservation of Energy. Conservation of energy and momentum equations can be easily derived and you may want to include an example. I saw this in Section 4.3 of "The Two Body Photon" downloadable at this web site:

I would try adding it myself but am not very good at wikipedia editing.

Thank you for this communication. I have looked at Section 4.3 of "The Two Body Photon". I think that material is unsuitable for inclusion in the article entitled Conservation of energy. Are you Randy Dorn?Chjoaygame (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment on equilibrium temperature[edit]

The greenhouse conjecture is demolished by the Loschmidt effect.

It is wrong to assume Loschmidt's gravitationally induced thermal gradient does not evolve spontaneously in a gravitational field. It is the isentropic state of maximum entropy with no further unbalanced energy potentials. You cannot explain why the Venus surface temperature rises by 5 degrees spread over the course of its 4-month-long day with any radiative forcing conjecture or greenhouse philosophy. The Venus surface receives barely 10% of the direct Solar radiation that Earth's surface receives. It would need over 16200 W/m^2 if radiation were heating the surface. Then, during sunlit hours it would need an extra 450W/m^2 to raise the temperature from about 732K to 737K. On Earth, if isothermal conditions were supposedly existing without water vapor and other greenhouse gases, then the sensitivity to water vapor would be about 10 degrees per 1% atmospheric content. But there is no evidence that a region with 1% above it is 30 degrees colder than another region at similar altitude and latitude with 4% above it. The effective surface layer of Earth's oceans may be considered to be only 1cm thick, or even if 10cm thick it is still very transparent to insolation. But a black or grey body does not transmit radiation, and the surface layer absorbs less than 1% of that incident solar radiation. So the S-B calculations are totally incorrect and planetary surface temperatures cannot be calculated using such.

This is where the error crept in in 1985 ...

"Coombes and Laue concluded that answer (1) is the correct one and answer (2) is wrong. They reached this conclusion after finding that statement (2a) is wrong, i.e., the average kinetic energy of all molecules does not decrease with the height even though the kinetic energy of each individual molecule does decrease with height.

These authors give at first a qualitative explanation of this fact by noting that since both the kinetic energy of the molecules and the number density of molecules decrease with height, the average molecular kinetic energy does not necessarily decrease with height."

This is absurd. They had the mean kinetic energy decreasing in each molecule, but then they divided again by the number. Try calculating a mean by dividing twice by the number of elements. A glaring error. The Loschmidt effect has NOT been debunked by this nonsense.

Velasco, S., Román, F.L., White, J.A. (1996). On a paradox concerning the temperature distribution of an ideal gas in a gravitational field, Eur. J. Phys., 17: 43–44. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Cotton (talkcontribs) 14:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Douglas Cotton, the Wikipedia does not post material that is not properly and reliably sourced. Your views on the Loschmidt doctrine are not properly and reliably sourced by Wikipedia criteria. They are therefore not fitting material for Wikipedia articles. There are some sources that tend to agree with your views, but they are not reliable sources by Wikipedia criteria. You are promoting a book that you say you have written and will soon be published. Wikipedia does not post promotions in its articles. An attempt to support the views in your book by putting up material in Wikipedia is not permitted because it is a form of promotion. It is customary to sign one's posts on talk pages by putting up four consecutive (without spaces) tilde signs ~. You can see the effect in advance of posting by hitting the <Show preview> button. It is customary to post new comments such as your present one in a new section at the bottom of the page.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


The thermal gradient in a gravitational field is a direct corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is the false assumption of isothermal conditions (which would have unbalanced energy potentials because of the extra gravitational potential energy at the top) which is not substantiated. The onus is on authors to produce proof that isothermal conditions could possibly be the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. I speak as a leading world expert in the field of atmospheric radiative heat transfers and thermodynamics, and I will easily rebut any attempt to prove that isothermal conditions in a gravitational field would be the state of thermodynamic equilibrium with maximum attainable entropy, as should evolve according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Douglas Cotton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Cotton (talkcontribs) 09:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Editor Douglas Cotton, as I have pointed out to you just above, it is polite to sign your posts with your Wikipedia signature made by four successive tilde signs, especially on someone else's talk page. Your signature as plain text does not do the job because it could too easily be forged by someone. When you don't sign in the usual way, others, such as the Sinebot, have to go around and mop up your deficiency, which is not good.
You explicitly say that you speak as a leading world expert in the field of atmospheric radiative heat transfers and thermodynamics, but you may be surprised to learn that such authority does not qualify you as a Wikipedia editor. Indeed it verges on specifically disqualifying you from some of your edits because the Wikipedia rule is that editors do not post their own original research in Wikipedia articles. You have persistently been trying to do that, and now that you write that you are writing in your own authority, you have convicted yourself of breach of the rule against original research. This means that no matter whether your conclusions are right or wrong, they are not permitted to be posted as you have been posting them. No question arises of someone here debating with you as to whether your edits are correct or not, or of your edits being justified by your rebuttals of arguments that might be offered here. The rule is against original research, as such, which is what you are trying to post. Whether you like it or not, your posts are close enough to promotion of your book to disqualify them on that ground too. It is perhaps a mistake that I have made, that I have commented on the physical content of your posts. Perhaps I should have let the matter rest solely on the editorial conduct violations that you perpetrate. On the other hand, some of your edits have a grain of validity apart from your own research and promotion, and that makes them open to comment on their physical content. If you make further attempts to post your own research, I will seek some kind of administrative remedy.Chjoaygame (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
It is inappropriate for you to post on my talk page an argument such as the one you have posted just above about an edit that I have made. The appropriate place for such an argument is the talk page of the article.Chjoaygame (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I do apologize for posting comments on the wrong talk page. I suppose there are things in help pages that I have not had time to read. I don't know if you receive notice of a comment like this one, though, so please respond below it. Douglas Cotton (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
What I write is standard physics derived, for example, directly from the statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the usual definition of thermodynamic equilibrium. Hence I would recommend those edits for no other reason that what should be a mutual striving to present valid physics in Wikipedia. It would be more appropriate, I suggest, to ask physicists with comparable knowledge and understanding of this specialized field in physics, to state what may be incorrect in anything I write, and why. Then appropriate scientific debate could get to the truth, for there can be only one truth, and that should be supported by empirical evidence. This is not new "research" but rather a discussion of what are logical conclusions to be made from the laws of physics as they already stand. Douglas Cotton (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk pages commentary does not primarily debate what is the right physics. It primarily debates what reliable sources have to say. It does not ask physicists with comparable knowledge and understanding of a specialized field in physics. It tries to present what reliable sources have to say. It is not permitted in Wikipedia editing to synthesize different reliable sources or to derive conclusions, logical or otherwise, or infer from what reliable sources have to say. It is permitted only to say what they say. So the debate you wish for is not the province of Wikipedia talk pages or editing.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I will address the Venus article soon, because the issue as to how the required energy gets into the surface in order to raise its temperature by 5 degrees in sunlit hours is not explained in the main Wikipedia article. If you personally know of anyone else who thinks they can explain it I would like to discuss such, and then maybe we can work out a suitable edit between us. Otherwise I will suggest such when I have time, which is not today. One thing we know for certain is that physics does not support the notion that radiation from colder carbon dioxide could raise the temperature from 732K to 737K. Douglas Cotton (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not watch the Venus article.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Second Law of Thermodynamics
The concept that temperature, pressure etc become spatially homogeneous only applies in the absence of an external force field or, if a gravitational force field is present, then only in a horizontal plane within that force field. In all other situations the force field gives rise to a situation in which molecules have non-homogeneous potential energy due to that force field. That potential energy must be taken into account in entropy computations because it varies with molecular location. This is how the density gradient evolves, for example.
The Second Law is clearly all about entropy increasing until thermodynamic equilibrium is attained, not just thermal equilibrium which strictly is also the state of maximum entropy with no unbalanced energy potentials, and thus no net thermal energy transfer across any internal boundary. Otherwise the definitions of thermodynamic and thermal equilibrium would not be compatible.
Because gravitational potential energy can interchange with kinetic energy, it must be taken into account in entropy calculations. There is empirical evidence everywhere.
These conclusions do not require additional support, because they obviously follow directly from the statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, coupled with accepted physics regarding entropy. In essence, the temperature and density gradients form together due to the Second Law. Then pressure may be calculated from temperature and density using the Ideal Gas Law. Douglas Cotton (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
This is an example of the kind of thing that is not province of a Wikipedia talk page or material for a Wikipedia edit. You say your conclusions follow directly from the statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Your conclusions are your conclusions, but you are not what the Wikipedia regards as a reliable source. So your conclusions are not appropriate for Wikipedia edits.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits @Dissipation[edit]

Hi, i generally agree with your edits, but why change this part here and then remove my previous addition (process function). Personally i find the introduction of the term "heat engine" (can we stay with bodies and entropy?) a bit confusing. Also i hope you realize you removed content which has been part of the article for some time (i just added some headlines for some structuring). Prokaryotes (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you took an example from 1854 on heat engines and replaced the advanced definition, without providing a proper context, see for example Prokaryotes (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I reverted all your edits since they removed many valid contents and changed the entire scope of the article. Please discuss your edits in the future before you start. Thanks Prokaryotes (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
As to "process function". The term was not helpful to clarify the statements, and was perhaps distracting.
As to heat engine, the expression that I replaced was perhaps in modern terms, but that did not make it easily comprehensible or well expressed. To explain why smoothing of spatial distribution of temperature by heat transfer reduces capacity to do work, a simple example is two systems with different temperatures. The heat engine is the natural way to extract work from them, and so is the natural example to use. Thermodynamics defines temperature in terms of the Carnot heat engine, which is a basic idea of thermodynamics found in every reliable textbook. I linked the term 'heat engine' to the Wikipedia article on the heat engine, which I had checked gave a fairly good account of the concept.
As to removing distracting or inappropriate content, I had refrained from doing it before, but it has long been overdue. Your edit stimulated me to do the necessary and obvious.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello Chjoaygame, can you look at the current version and tell me if you still have objections, or better yet let's discuss future edits on the talk page there, Regards. Prokaryotes (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I have already indicated what I think should be done.Chjoaygame (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Prokaryotes (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The Second Law of Thermodynamics article has serious omissions.[edit]

The WP article gives the overall mistaken impression that the Second Law is only about thermal equilibrium whereas in fact it is about thermodynamic equilibrium as is stated at the top, but never further discussed. Hence it is the Second Law which brings about the density gradient in the troposphere, for example, because thermodynamic equilibrium also includes mechanical equilibrium.

Consequently I have added an additional paragraph (copied below) in an appropriate position in the text. This has nothing to do with my book, might I add, and I have never mentioned my book, although I did quote my March 2012 peer-reviewed paper as a reference, which was deleted. That paper had citations to other peer-reviewed material, such as Dr Hans Jelbring's paper on atmospheric mass. The paragraph I have added in order to overcome this serious shortcoming in the WP article reads (or did read) ...

"So, whilst the statement in the previous paragraph applies, as it says, to a non-gravitational system, a more detailed explanation is required for an isolated system in a gravitational field. Thus we need an understanding of the fact that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is an all-embracing law pertaining to thermodynamic equilibrium evolving as entropy increases. For example, it also explains the obvious density gradient in a planet's troposphere, and this is because entropy will increase if there are unbalanced energy potentials, such as extra gravitational potential energy in molecules at higher altitudes."

Douglas Cotton, B.Sc.(physics), B.A.(economics), Dip.Bus.Admin March 30, 2014— Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Cotton (talkcontribs) 10:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

This post is about the article on the Second law of thermodynamics and should have been posted on the talk page for that article, not on my talk page. I have copied it to the proper place.Chjoaygame (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diathermal wall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Absorptivity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Adiabatic equation derivation[edit]

Hello Chjoaygame! I have seen replies on talk adiabatic process and I request your feedback to the derivation of the equation pv*(gamma) of the adiabatic transformation posted on that talk page. Is somehow Robert Mayer's relation involved in the derivation? Also the distinction between the adiabatic and politropic processes is not very clearly underlined. I think these aspects require some extra-clarification.-- (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your message here. Your message seems to suggest I should be involved in the questions you raise. I am interested only in some aspects of the articles. I have not been attending to the questions you raise. I suppose many editors are looking at them.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Matter wave may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you BracketBot. I have fixed the error that you kindly identified.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wave function may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thermodynamic system[edit]

Hi - I've made a comment on Talk:Thermodynamic system#Boundaries vs walls relating to some changes you made - feel free to respond there if you want to. Just posting here to let you know. Thanks! Djr32 (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


Could you please chime in on this nonsense? Clearly this user isn't going to be convinced of his own bias by me alone. I am starting to think that I may have to nominate this article for arbitration to get those flags removed. Joseph Petek (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I am already overloaded with other problems at present.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Help me![edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with finding a certain template table that needs editing because the table is faulty. The faulty template table is

Interactions of thermodynamic systems
Type of system Mass flow Work Heat
Open Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY
Closed Red XN Green tickY Green tickY
Thermally isolated Red XN Green tickY Red XN
Mechanically isolated Red XN Red XN Green tickY
Isolated Red XN Red XN Red XN


Chjoaygame (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The table can be edited at Template:Table of thermodynamic systems (just edit it like any normal page). What is the fault that you've identified? Yunshui  14:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for this. The fault is that the structure of the table is misleading or invalid. A system is governed by the transfers that it can engage in. That is governed by the walls. An open system can only engage in heat or work transfer if it has walls impermeable to matter as well as walls permeable to matter, because heat and work are not defined for walls permeable to matter. The table is so structured as to hide this or to mislead about it.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Rather than fiddle with someone else's table, I put in another table. But your advice was very helpful anyway. Thank you.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutron diffraction[edit]

Hi, You recently edited the Matter wave article - I asked a question about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Neutron diffraction. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I have responded there.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Re:I undid some of your category change edits[edit]

Hi, Chjoaygame. Thank you for your message. I don't have fun at all, believe me. I invite you to read Wikipedia:Assume good faith instead of judge easily. My page of discussion is open to everyone and I answer to everyone, so I think it is more polite to talk together about your reasons before to revert my changes. I made those changes because of these reasons:

  • the template in Category:Thermodynamics stated clearly: "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable"
  • in Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization is written: "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category".
  • Heat, sensible heat and work are thermodynamic properties, or am I wrong? You wrote in your comment that they are "a kind of process"; I have to correct you: heat transfer and work transfer are processes, instead work and heat are the properties that are involved during these processes;
  • An adiabatic wall and a diathermal wall can delimit a thermodynamic system and they can be considered as thermodynamic systems, as well, isn't it?

Please let me know your opinion about it. I am also interested to know your opinion about the other changes I made: why you are not sure that they are appropriate/useful? It is important to talk together clearly, because I want to continue to move other pages in subcategories. In general, I see that in en.wikipedia it happens very often that when I move a page from a category to a more specific subcategory someone come to mourn or revert sometimes without telling me why, however I think the guidelines are clear at this regard. If we want to leave some "common term" like heat and work in category:thermodynamics because the reader tend to associate this two concepts instead of more specific ones, that's fine for me, but we can do this like an exception, not like a rule. I am waiting for your answer before to continue to edit, I hope you will do the same. Thanks. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It is evident that you have not been following the talk page discussion on heat. You have your own ideas about it, but they are not the consensus of Wikipedia editors' ideas. You have tried to impose your ideas against the consensus without having read the talk page discussion on the matter. In thermodynamics, heat and work are not properties, they are kinds of process. Much editorial effort has been devoted to establishing that, and you have not taken due notice of that effort. Heat transfer is considered synonymous with heat. It is a peculiarity of language, but that is how it is. Ordinary language does not have the property of compositionality, but you write as if it did so. Work is more obviously in syntax a process not a property.
A physical object which under some circumstances can be considered as a wall can under some other circumstances be considered as a system, but as respectively particular thermodynamic entities they are then different things. A thing is what it is, and not something else. A wall is not a system.
You appeal to Wikipedia policy, but you don't really understand the subject matter you are dealing with. You write above that "In general, I see that in en.wikipedia it happens very often that when I move a page from a category to a more specific subcategory someone come to mourn or revert sometimes without telling me why, however I think the guidelines are clear at this regard." This makes you a Wikilawyer, but not an expert editor in particular subjects, no matter how much good faith you might have in your expertise. You are flying from article to article, acting as an instant expert on each new subject. There are many instant experts who edit Wikipedia. I have told you this because I see you are flying around from article to article, and because what I see in my area is that you are largely doing more harm than good. I don't intend to try to chase you on this, but I think it reasonable and perhaps useful that I let you know what I think, and that I correct you when I think you are mistaken in areas which you have evidently not taken due note of talk page discussion.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Your tone looks like unfair and accusatory to me. I have expertise in Chemical engineering (Master's degree + some professional experience), so I have a lot of knowledge about chemistry, thermodynamics, transport phenomena, chemical equipment design, calculus and a lot of other scientific and technical subjects. I am "flying around from article to article" (as you said) because my English is not perfect and I am used to edit in it.wikipedia, so I prefer to do minor contributions in order to understand little by little which are the differences between it.wikipedia and en.wikipedia and to be sure that I don't do any grammar mistake.
In it.wikipedia the guideline Wikipedia:Assume good faith (that I think you didn't read yet) has a big value and it means that instead of criticize the contributions of other users is advisable to talk together and explain each other the reasons of our points of view.
I don't know what is your knowledge, too, but in every case I am ready to discuss together about what it needs to be done in each page.
Furthermore, in it.wikipedia at the moment I am unfortunately the only chemical engineer and there are a few of users interested in chemistry and thermodynamics, so I had to do (almost) everything by myself.
I realized that in Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering there are few participants and nobody is answering to my questions there, so I supposed that also in en.wikipedia I have to do everything myself.
I am happy to see that there is some active user regarding thermodynamics subjects, instead. On my side, I will do the possible to maintain a cooperative behaviour and I am expecting the same from the other users.
By time, I realized that some concepts like "heat" and "work" are not so obvious like you say. From the point of view of an engineer, heat and work have a value and a unit of measure, so there are two "thermodynamics quantities". The point of view of a physicist maybe is different.
I see now that the discussion page of the page "heat" is quite long, so I will take some time to read it.
Please understand that I am used to collaborate in a different environment and it is probable that our academic experience are different, so some my contributions can appear "weird" to you, but I can explain every of them and I want to do it because I believe that Wikipedia can be made better.
For these reasons, I really would appreciate if you could explain one by one why do you think that my contributions are "doing more harm than good". There is not hurry: you can tell something now, something, tomorrow and so on, until you told me everything to think about my contributions. Also please let me know if you think that there are some easier tasks that I can do at the moment to improve the pages regarding my knowledge. I am interested to understand better how people use to collaborate in en.wikipedia and I need some time before to settle into it.
Thank you. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for these comments. You feel I have been unsympathetic and unfair.
It seems to me that you are engaged in a more or less systematic effort to improve the en.wikipedia. It feels to me that you approach the articles from the outside, as if a routine or uniform approach needs to be imposed from a central expertise, as against approaches based in local or inside knowledge. That feeling is the reason for my rather terse responses. I haven't systematically examined your edits. The ones I recall I think are mostly re-categorizations.
As for your edits seeming "weird" to me. No, not weird, but yes, mistaken. A large part of the problem is in traditional ordinary language and the language of the early days of thermodynamics. There heat is treated more or less as a property of a body. But nowadays, and with much debate on the talk pages, and careful and extensive literature investigation, the thermodynamic technical term heat refers to a quantity that belongs to a process, not to a body. You are right just above to note that it refers to a quantity, but to speak of it as a property unqualified strongly suggests to the reader that it is a property of a body; and your re-categorizations were to the word property, not to the word quantity which you now use. You could argue that it is a property of a process, but I would say that was special pleading and not good in the present context.
Though there is a valuable amount of it, I don't see too much collaboration in these pages. Very often the editors are more or less lone wolves. I think there are hundreds of them for these pages. Not wishing to be unkind, it is evident that your English is not native.
There are many sources for thermodynamics. They vary widely. Some are much better than others. One should select the best ones, and avoid the less good ones.
There are plenty of things wrong with the relevant pages. To fix them, I think one should primarily work carefully from a wide base of reliable sources rather than rely on one's own personal expertise.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. It is good for me to leave "Thermodynamics" as the category for Heat and Work, because as you said the reader can be confused if we say that the heat is a "property"; in the same way, I think it can be confusing also categorize them as "Process", so the category "Thermodynamics" looks more appropriate.
I know that my English needs to be improved; I moved in UK from about 2 years and I hope that continuing to live here my English will reach a good level by time.
In future, I will try to rely more upon sources and less upon my expertise, as suggested. I pointed out my expertise just because I think sometimes it is useful to know the background of the person you are talking to. For example, in it.wikipedia we had a previous discussion about the symbol used by the sources to indicate the Helmholtz free energy, and we noticed that half of the people said that the symbol used in all the books is F, while the other half one said that the symbol used in all the books is instead A. We realized after that almost all of the engineering books use F and almost all of the physics books use A: that was the reason of this strong disagreement between the two groups of contributors. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for this.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Definition of heat[edit]

I added some considerations on Talk:Heat. Please take a look. Thanks. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but it looks to me that you are treating me not enough polite. In fact your answer about consensus (which consensus? are we in an oligarchic or a democratic community? Am I not part of the community?) looks to me vague and inappropriate. Please consider my intervention to the talk page reading it carefully. Thanks. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I previously carefully read your comment on the talk page. I found it to be faulty.
The consensus is to be found by reading the talk page over some years.
We are neither in an oligarchic nor a democratic community. We work by reasoned assessment of reliable sources.
I comment further on the talk page of the article.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ontology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taxonomy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quantum physics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solvay. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Elsevier access[edit]

Hello, Chjoaygame. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Chris Troutman (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Please, be concise on talk:wave function (and everywhere in general)[edit]

Yes, your edits are no doubt in good faith. But now there are reams of threads going off-topic for the article (wave function) and now onto dynamical pictures of QM, quantum states, and even general quantum theory itself. I mean no disrespect in any way, but what did Dirac think of you when you met? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer). You post wall after wall of text both in articles and their talk pages, which ramble and have no clear point. Dirac rarely wasted a word yet made his points clear.

Please stay brief and on topic. It is hard enough keeping up to speed on that talk page with current life. From tomorrow I'll try to edit more (need to sleep for now, too tired to edit). Thanks, M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 23:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I edited above, there were errors. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 12:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Choaygame I did read what you self-reverted here: Diff. I am being polite and bring this up here, where the audience is smaller, instead of there. Your posts that you reverted reveal that your grasp of the subject is (even) less than I previously thought. I am asking you to not post any more on the talk page and please please please, do not edit he articles on quantum mechanics before you have studied the subject. You don't know the bare basics and have extremely strong persistent opinions on what the articles should say. This is a dangerous combination – for you and for the articles. It qualifies you a full-fledged crank (person). I'll not respond any more to your posts due to my previous experience with cranks. It remains to sort out what should be done with the damage already made to the articles. YohanN7 (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A question about images of Compton scattering[edit]

Hi Choaygame-

I have an issue with a number of images pertaining to Compton scattering. If you think you have any insights, please visit:


Thanks - --guyvan52 (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)