User talk:Sbharris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to my talk page.
Click here to leave a new message at the end.
You will be asked for a subject also.
Alternatively, you can add your message at the end of the appropriate section listed in the index below.

DYK for Florbetapir (18F)[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


Hello there. I saw your essay at User talk:MastCell, and I wondered if (as a way to put something good into a repository) you might be interested in this concept, which has gotten us this and what version you now see. Happy New Year! Biosthmors (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Question for you[edit]

Hi Sbharris! A comment you made recently at the 'alt med' talk page made me question my understanding of exactly who uses what definition of CAM; I thought I would just quickly ask you about it here. I hope this does not offend you? In this edit you mention that the "the "Cochrane/BMJ" definition is not that, but rather....a 1995 definition by an "expert panel" at NIH's "Institute of Alternative Medicine" or IAM". There seems to be multiple reliable sources with conflicting information?

  • This source that says that it is the definition of CAM adopted by Cochrane Collaboration. I do not have the full text, so perhaps there is a caveat in the discussion about this being developed by IAM, but only used by Cochrane?
  • This source attributes the exact same definition to the Institute of Medicine, 2005?

My assumption is that you also have a source that says it is from the NIH's IAM in 1995? Any ideas how we should deal with contradictory sources? or perhaps they just all use this same definition? Thanks and best regards, Puhlaa (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion. I gave you the link: [1]. If that doesn't take you directly to the end of archive 21, just go down to the last proposal and read the discussion to the end. You're third from the last poster. The quote goes back to 1995, and originates from an "expert panel" in a discussion hosted by the Institute of Alternative Medicine. Your second source-- This source actually says all that, and then gives a different source for the boxed quote (Institute of Medicine, 2005) in the box! I think that's a simple error. Either that, or the IOM adopted the same language 10 years later, which I think is unlikely. SBHarris 05:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I remember where we were discussing the definition, but I still cant find where we discussed why the definition was attributed to different organizations by different sources? and I didn't recognize how you verified that it was originally from the OAM in 1995? Either way, I see now where this source actually says "The widely-accepted theoretical definition of CAM (see Box 1) was arrived at by the Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM) expert panel at the Conference on CAM Research methodology in April 1995." Thanks for pointing that out. This still does not explain why the BMJ source attributes this definition to cochrane, but I am satisfied that the definition comes from OAM in 1995. Thanks for your patience. Puhlaa (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate your perspective[edit]

I've been paying passing attention to the discussion at Alternative medicine. I've always been annoyed that the overall tone of the article, and much of the discussion, assumes that all modern medicine is evidence-based and that all alternative medicine is wacko. It was very refreshing to see your informed comments. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


Hi. I emailed you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Re your question on diffs[edit]


Medical practice[edit]

Looking around a bit, with curiosity stirred by the article, I came across a wayback discussion at Talk:Evidence-based medicine 10 January 2007 in which an editor remarked : ... science at best tells what you can do, not what you should do. Medical practice is very often about what people WANT. Science AT BEST only tells them what they can perhaps GET, at what COST (in money and risk). So there's always that gap in any praxis (technology, medicine, engineering, art) that needs to be filled from philosophy and practicality.... [3] . This nicely stated what, in my view, is a sound basis for the current revising of After a series of recent edits, in the current version, EBM has been omitted from the "definition" in the first sentence, but is retained with a link in the "definition" for CAM, and again under "Misleading use of terminology", "Ineffective and misleading statements on efficacy", "Prevalence of use" and "Appeal". It would be helpful to me, a newcomer to the topic from September (and no expert plain vanilla), to be advised if those mentions of EBM are well-made. Can you help? Qexigator (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

COM frame[edit]

Would you care to respond to my note at the article talk page?--Ilevanat (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Now that you have ventured into the article, would you care to read more comments?--Ilevanat (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Isotope #Even and odd nucleon numbers[edit]

I will not start a quarrel over the table. Just notice that your edit [4] removed the most important link in the entire section. You certainly need a bit more attention when you try to "fix" something in articles. Or, possibly, it will be less error-prone for you to create an original content? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it. We all make errors, whatever we do. I made an error in accidently erasing the new main article ref, and then you youself made grammatical errors in reversion of it, which then had to be fixed (Dirac66 got to it before I did). We're human. The more original content one contributes, the more errors one will naturally contribute. Since I've possibly written more of this article than anybody else, and certainly at least as much as most, and certain far more than you [5], naturally many of the errors that remain in it now, will be mine. So sue me. When you write more of some article (any article) than anybody else, you'll have the same problem.

I'm not interested in fighting over the table. As explained in the revision, I don't care what the table looks like, so long as everybody's browser can read it. The original of that table isn't mine, BTW, though the latest numbers in it are. I have no proprietary interest in it, or anything else here. Come up with an alternative that works and I'm happy to use yours. SBHarris 21:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Fukushima "disaster" (discussion)[edit]

Your talk page entry of March 21 is kind of a classic. With a lot of work (on your part of course! :) this could be turned into an essay. Like the lead might caution editors about using emotionally charged words without sound basis; don't blindly follow media. But your writeup was pretty npov which is why, IMO, it deserves a wider audience. (I'd rather have it in the MOS as a proscription, but I will settle for whatever I get, I guess! :). Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I did leave a comment at the "Disaster portal" talk page, [6] but probably hardly anybody will read it.

If you think it's worth discussing perhaps I can repost on the TALK page for the MoS. Of course, this wouldn't be a MoS proscription without some discussion, but a discussion is worth having, as we have a WP where you can read about the Hindenburg disaster and there is no Titanic disaster (though this and worse maritime disasters are listed, they aren't called disasters in their articles, Titanic is formally only Sinking of the RMS Titanic). We've cleaned out nearly all disaster titles from the maritime stuff, but it still plagues the newer tech articles, ala recentism. Still, we have more mine disasters and men have been dying in mines as long as at sea.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback and I think I will post some note at TALK:MoS. SBHarris 20:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, there are two logical places for MoS naming guidelines TALK where I could post the proposal, and I have done so: [7]. Each place has a link to the other. Now we just have to see what people think of it globally. Consistancy has never been one of WP's strong points. In fact, there's a really stupid essay called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that actually contradicts itself! Nobody cares. SBHarris 00:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Alas, it is often hard to get opinions. MOS seems widely watched, so hopefully, you will get a few. Try changing the guideline! That will merit a "few" choice remarks!  :)
And yes, not many editors will use an essay, but I often use a few, selected ones as do other editors. Student7 (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
You can see how it's going: [8]. What would I call the essay? How about: The disasterous use of "disaster" in WP article names. link WP:DISASTER SBHarris 21:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I like the idea of including the word "disaster." Would WP:NOTADISASTER be equally appropriate? Could use both, I suppose.
The title is a good working title. Why not? Thanks again for your efforts. Student7 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do me a favour[edit]

Hi, since you are a registered user on Wikipedia and the page is semi protected to non-registered users like me, please do me a favour and update Wikipedia on the page on Scurvy (the disease) as per my below comments on that article's talk page:

The article states in the fifth paragraph (just before the list of contents): "Vitamin C is widespread in plant tissues, with particularly high concentrations occurring in citrus fruits (oranges, lemons, limes, grapefruits), tomatoes, potatoes, cabbages, and green peppers." While the part on citrus fruits is correct, tomatoes, potatoes and cabbages are relatively low in Vitamin C and contain MUCH less than oranges (50-80% less than oranges). See the table on this page:

Additionally, even oranges are only moderately high in Vitamin C and not "particularly high". Traditionally, oranges have always been viewed as being high in Vitamin C, but there are some much better examples that could have been used in the article. For example, according to the same link on Vitamin C I posted above, there are quite a few commonly available fruits & vegetables that have a lot more Vitamin C than oranges, such as guavas (4 times as much as oranges), red peppers (almost 4 times that of oranges), parsley (3 times as much), kiwifruit and broccoli (twice as much).

The article is protected to non-registered users like me, so please can someone update it ASAP with the facts I listed above (which are already found on the Wikipedia page on Vitamin C).

Thanks. -- (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

Just in case you don't get the notification: see this thread I started at WikiProject talk Chemistry. Graham87 06:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice complement and I've tried to add something to the discussion above. "Body mass" and "low birth mass" are gaining in use, and even atomic weight will probably someday be replaced by relative atomic mass. But that day is not now, so meanwhile we call the things by their most common terms on WP. SBHarris 02:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Very belated apology and thanks[edit]

Hi, this is years overdue: had I not been so new and naive, I would have co-nominated you for the EH FAC - unfortunately I didn't know about co-nominations then, so there you go, I screwed up. But I've always thought you deserved the recognition because you helped a lot and continue to, for which I'm grateful. I've frankly had a shitty year - might send you an email b/c an interesting Hemingway story is part of all that but best left off public pages - and have decided they can classify him as whatever they want. He'd enjoy being classified as male anyway. Anyway, sorry these thanks have taken so long to get to your page. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration. I'm not sure I really know what a FAC conomination is, either, so I haven't missed it. On WP, everybody is sort of equal, whether they know anything or not, and so far as I can tell, nobody has been able to fix that. Do you have a fix? And sure, I would be glad to read any new EH stories. There is always something new about EH. Today I realized that he is almost an exact contempary with my own grandfather, who was born 3 days after EH in 1899. And they were both in Chicago together in 1921, except that my grandfather was a Mormon missionary there, and EH was of course living there writing newspaper stories and trying to figure himself out. I can imagine my grandfather knocking on the door where EH and a bunch of other young men lived, and asking what they knew about the Mormons. Or perhaps later knocking on the door of newlyweds EH and Hadley.

Did you see Midnight in Paris? It had some good lines ("THAT was Djuna Barnes? No wonder she wanted to lead!") and a lot of misses. Mostly regarding Hemingway, who asks Gil if he's ever shot a lion (no, and you haven't either, EH, not in 1925). Now if they'd managed to do EH with the proper lisp on "l"s, it would have been better. "Gir, have you ever shot a rion?" Heh. SBHarris 01:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Couldnt resist[edit]

... this ;-) Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

improving terminology of "convert matter to energy" in Mass-energy equivalence[edit]

Hi Sbharris, Could you take a look at my new topic at the bottom of Talk:Mass-energy equivalence? Nobody seems to be responding and I don't want to make a unilateral change and then everyone notices. DavRosen (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Photographer Barnstar.png The Photographer's Barnstar
For subjecting a goldfish and crab to the perils of perfluorocarbon. Thank you for your creativity. TCO (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes on author pages[edit]

Since you have over 100 edits at John Steinbeck, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Head louse removed section/ deleted the entirety of it[edit]

There is no one, and I repeat, no one stupid to believe anyone suggest anyone, and I repeat, anybody who suggest lice help humanity. They live near hair, sucking blood. Logical conclusions suggest they only reduce fitness. As a result, because it is impossible to attempt to repair it, I instead removed it in its entity. -- (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI notification[edit]

Information icon Hello. Please participate in the current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Long term incivility from User:BrandonTR. Thank you. —Gamaliel (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


Lithium, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Why are doing doing this[edit]

I simply want the images that I have uploaded deleted so I don't have to deal with the image-nazis around here anymore. They've been pissing me off for years and I've had it with them. Almost all the stuff I've uploaded has been removed already and it's not worth my time or energy trying to fight to keep the few that remain. I've orphaned them voluntarily so they get deleted. If you want to re-upload them under your name, and put them back into the articles, like that other guy is doing, fine, I just don't want them attached to me any longer. Cyberia23 (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Make group 12 poor metals?[edit]

You are invited to comment on this suggestion (Zn, Cd, Hg → poor metal; Cn → only predicted; 113 → predicted transition metal) at WT:ELEM#Make the group 12 elements poor metals? Double sharp (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

George de Mohrenschildt[edit]

I'm bringing this up here because I don't want to derail the talk page discussion. I'm quite enjoying watching him try to squirm out of answering direct questions. In regards to the Epstein material, I chopped it because it looked like a generic conspiracy sinister-sounding block quote. If you think it belongs, I support restoring the information without the conspiracy-style block quote. I don't know anything about that incident, so I encourage you to take a stab at throwing in a couple sentences about it. Gamaliel (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed reference format for Alternative medicine[edit]

Greetings and thank you for your contributions to WP. I have proposed a format for references on Alternative medicine. I wanted to let you know and give you an opportunity to comment here. Good day! - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Signpost Report[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Elements for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day! --buffbills7701 20:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


I can think of no one better fitted that you for keeping an eye on this. Give 'em hell.[9] EEng (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC) P.S. This may help too User:Sloth_monkey/ORMEs

talk to me Goose[edit]

Bump. I like the fluorine idea, talk to me more over at Nitrogen. (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

New username[edit]

Hi, Sbharris. Just an FYI that I have changed my username from Sirsparksalot to JCMPC. Since you are on a mini crusade to police the usage of "high-energy bond", I wanted to let you know where you can now find me in case you need some reinforcements. I routinely check some pages where it might be misused, but the articles are long and many, and I don't have enough time to read through (let alone edit) all of the sections that need attention. Maybe the two of us can make more progress together than either of us can alone. JCMPC (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Formation modes of isotopes (nuclides)[edit]

Hi. I am writing to you since you are one of the chief contributors to the articles Isotopes of {name of element}. I note that the tables systematically indicate the decay modes of each isotope, but not the formation modes. For example I was wondering where the Co-57 used in Mossbauer spectroscopy actually comes from, but was unable to find this information at Isotopes of cobalt. Nor is it in the lists of radiogenic nuclides (which only includes long-lived isotopes of geologic relevance: 1600 years+) or cosmogenic nuclides. Is there a table somewhere on Wikipedia which allows one to look up the formation mode (or source) of a given isotope? If not perhaps this information should be added somewhere. What do you think? Dirac66 (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No such table that I know of. I had been planning to add such data to the lists of nuclides in stable nuclide (254 nuclides) and radionuclide (34 more), as it's available, plus a few notable cosmogenic nuclides, in the excellent summary of cosmological origins of nuclides given by Anders and Grevesse, Abundances of the elements; meteoric and solar, in Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta, 53, 197-214 (1989). This article (which I don't have) is used for the table 4.2 that occurs on pp. 104-108 of McSween and Huss' textbook Cosmochemistry (Cambridge University Press, 2010) that I do have. Alas, I don't know of any compilation for the non-primordial nuclides like Co-57 which are used industrially. As you see in list of nuclides, there are about 600 of these with half lives longer than an hour, so it's a much harder problem (particularly as you can't just sum up an industrial process with an "R" or "S" or whatever).

In articles we have on isotopes, I've been putting in industrial production methods as I run across them (a good example is in isotopes of iodine). I wish they were all that good! But there are a lot where this data is simply missing, as you noticed in cobalt. Since I haven't even done the simpler work for primordials, I haven't felt much need to go looking for artificials.

If you are any good at tables it would help a lot if you could put the nuclides in stable nuclides into table form, with a column for "origin" and then I can start to load in the cosmic/primordial data from McSween and Huss. That data will eventually find its say into the "origins" sections of element articles, which are not all complete at the moment, and some of which have some old data that could be updated. However, where the synthetic radioisotope info is going to come from, and where it should go, is something I haven't thought about. Clearly there are too many radioisotopes to go into a section in element articles (perhaps a few large use commercial radioisotopes could go in, if any there be-- Co-60, etc). The primordial data could go in the indicated tables in stable nuclide, as it's simple to summarize in table space. Not so for the manufactured radioisotopes. That data can go into isotopes of element X articles, and it's a possibility to tabulate it in some monster stand-alone list article. However, this involves a short paragraph on production for each nuclide, and that makes for a long article, even for just the several hundred (?) radionuclides now on the commercial market. It's not something that can really be done in table form, and interestingly the reason is that there are usually a lot of purification steps in commercial isotope preparation that you don't worry about (by definition) for primordials, which you just describe in situ, occurring messily as they do in nature. SBHarris 19:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks. I see from the Isotopes of iodine article that the question is complicated so an answer for all isotopes (or even all useful isotopes) will take a long time. No, I am not good at formatting tables, but you could try to find a table in Wikipedia on another subject with the format you want, copy it to your sandbox, and then change the irrelevant data one entry at a time to the correct data until you have the table you want. That's how I attack the editing of LaTeX formulas - it usually works except for the odd error message!
May I also ask what is your best guess specifically for Co-57 which I am curious about? Cosmogenic seems unlikely as what in the upper atmosphere could yield Co-57? Would it be one of the many uranium fission products formed in nuclear reactors?? Dirac66 (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Cyclotron irradiation of iron. [10]. Nearly all industrial isotopes are produced by cyclotrons firing protons or deuterons (popular for proton rich nuclides), by neutron irradiation in reactors (the neutron rich nuclides), or by cleanup of fission products (popular for those products that are large fractions of fission products, like I-131). SBHarris 04:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that answers my question about the isotope I was most curious about. I have now added the information with your source to Isotopes of cobalt, so now we have production information for one more isotope at least. Dirac66 (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Vote: Group 3 metals; group 12 as poor metals[edit]

As a member of WikiProject Elements, you are invited to comment and vote here. Double sharp (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Vitamin B12 Deficiency[edit]

Hi, You edited this subject back in 2010 to include under the Treatment section, this statement: Vitamin B12 can be given as intramuscular or subcutaneous injections of hydroxycobalamin, methylcobalamin, or cyanocobalamin. Body stores (in the liver) are partly repleted with half a dozen injections in the first couple of weeks (full repletion of liver stores requires about 20 injections)"

Do you have a citation regarding 20 injections being required to replete liver stores? I'm doing some research on b12 and such a citation would be very useful. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanguard1824 (talkcontribs) 19:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway templates[edit]

You are one of a handful of editors with more than 25 edits at Talk:Ernest Hemingway. There is a debate at Talk:Ernest_Hemingway#Ernest_Hemingway_templates regarding the inclusion of {{To Have and Have Not}}, {{The Old Man and the Sea}}, {{The Killers (short story)}}, {{For Whom the Bell Tolls}}, {{A Farewell to Arms}}, {{The Sun Also Rises}} on the article. Previously at WP:NOVEL a discussion was held when editing at Fyodor Dostoyevsky got contentious. The discussion was held in May 2013 at a broad level regarding editors with multiple templates like these. At the time Charles Dickens, Stephen King, Jane Austen, H. G. Wells, Mark Twain, Jules Verne, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robert Louis Stevenson, Agatha Christie, Bram Stoker, Felix Salten, Arthur Conan Doyle, Truman Capote, Curt Siodmak, Dashiell Hammett, Émile Zola, Washington Irving, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Oscar Wilde (mostly plays), Alexandre Dumas, Hans Christian Andersen, Nikolai Gogol, Leo Tolstoy, Edgar Allan Poe, A. J. Cronin, Ernest Hemingway, H. P. Lovecraft, John Steinbeck, Herman Melville, Wilkie Collins, H. Rider Haggard, Thomas Hardy, Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay, Henryk Sienkiewicz, John Wyndham were all in this group. Since then William Shakespeare has been added based on discussions at WP:BARD. That discussion reached no consensus but the closer suggested reopening debate on the group as a whole or on a subset with five or more templates which might be handled differently than those with fewer templates. He made no suggestion that the debates should devolve to debates at each individual author's page. The group with 5 or more would be Hemingway, William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Stephen King, Jane Austen, H. G. Wells, Jules Verne, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Oscar Wilde, and Hans Christian Andersen. My interpretation of the current debate is centering on whether Hemingway should be laid out differently than this peer group of authors in the sense that this article be the only one with these templates removed. Please come join the discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Elements[edit]

Hi Sbharris, there might be the need of a little help to cool down the talk page of the WikiProject Elements.--Stone (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File:HeliumUsePieChart1996.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HeliumUsePieChart1996.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to see[edit]

...this Talk section, here [11], regarding an article that you have edited. If you, as a more interested editor, wish to move this in the direction of being more proportionate and better sourced per WP policy, all the better. My goal is the endpoint, and respect for fellow contributors. By the by, I worked on Miller-Urey experiments in the 1970s, and was a correspondent with the S. Miller at UCSD, so though pharma now, I am not out of my depths with having to edit this. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

See also note at Drbogdan talk page. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Degrees of Freedom[edit]

An editor pointed out a possible error in Heat capacity regarding how the number of degrees of freedom is counted. At issue is whether a vibrational mode counts as one or two degrees of freedom. It does contribute twice the heat capacity as a translational mode does, but at issue is whether that should be called two degrees of freedom. I don't know if whether it's just a terminology issue or what, but the article appears to contradict the "Degrees of freedom" article. I figured you would be better at clearing it up than I would. Spiel496 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

How many naturally occurring elements?[edit]

Hi. Have you looked at Chemical element recently? Now the article has returned to 92 which I doubt, but I am not certain. Could you please see my new comment at the end of Talk:Chemical element#Elements found in nature and respond there? Thanks. Dirac66 (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at the alcohol page[edit]

…for a significant move of text to the Talk section, here [12]. This editor has taken upon himself to write something in every article mentioning alcohol, and he is doing it uniformly badly. See what I did, and perhaps also look at the whole new alcohol (drug) article he wrote (with few and poor citations as well). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Crown Gold[edit]

In trying to find an authoritative breakdown for the actual silver/copper ratio used in the alloy for U.S. "standard gold", the closest I found was the crown gold article, which suggests ~6% silver (and thus ~2.33% copper for 22 kt gold) But the only source given for the article does not have the 6% details. The relevant U.S. coinage Acts of 1772 and 1837 only say that the alloy

...said alloy shall be composed of silver and copper, in such proportions not exceeding one half silver as shall be found convenient;...

This would legally limit the silver content of 22 kt gold to anywhere from 0% to 4.17%. Could you point me toward sources for the ~6% silver value, and the 0% silver starting in 1837. Many thanks, ―MJBurrage(TC) 01:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Gads, you have caught an embarrassing error on my part, and will have to be fixed here and in some of the US coin articles like Eagle (United States coin). The figures for gold fineness changes are correct, but the silver content figure is not. What happened is I misinterpreted the 1792 and 1834 coin acts which set gold and silver at 1:15 and 1:16 value ratios, respectively, and misinterpreted that to mean these were the ratios of gold to silver in gold COINS. The first ratio would make 6%. But as you point out, it can't have been more than half of the 2 remaining kt, which would make it 0 to 4.17%. I haven't been able to find any actual analyses of these coins, but I suspect the composition of the non-gold part of the alloy varied from mint to mint. In those days you could even bring your own bullion to the mint and they'd strike it into coins for you! So, you're right. Please change it, and I'll try to undo such damage as I've done in other places. SBHarris 02:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
That explains some issues I noticed (and have corrected on Eagle (United States coin)) a few hours after asking. I would have thought there is detailed knowledge of the most common silver/copper ratios actually used for the alloy used in "standard" gold, (if I understand the legal code correctly, said reporting was even required) but I cannot find anything authoritative on the matter. Even if the Mint does not have public production records, you would think there were assay records from those who were melting (or are now collecting) the coins. ―MJBurrage(TC) 16:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Natural occurrence of transplutoniums[edit]

Hi Sbharris. While filling up some entries at List of elements I realized something odd about Emsley's claim that Am to Cf occur naturally and noted it down at Talk:List of elements#Abundances for the really rare elements. Did I mess anything up in these very rough estimates? Because they lead to total crustal abundances of Bk and Cf that aren't even close to reaching one atom. Double sharp (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your numerical reasoning. Does Emsley give any source for Cf on Earth other than this crazy R-process type thing? SBHarris 20:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
He also mentions that Cf, along with Np to Fm, would have existed in the Oklo reactor, but at that point you have enough neutrons around to do this. Now, I seriously doubt it could happen today, and all he quotes is the quasi-R-process thing. He says that the Cm isotopes produced have long enough half-lives for them to stick around long enough to get bumped with a neutron, but the thing is, their concentration is so low that it's not likely they will get bumped with one in the first place. Same for Bk.
He quotes in his Cm section that primordial 244Pu beta decays to 244Am (which it doesn't, though it does occasionally double beta decay to Cm...) and in the Am section he just gives the crazy R-process thing...
I think, the only two of the transplutoniums that stand a chance to occur naturally are Am (two neutrons for 239Pu seems JUST about possible) and Cm (this one is for sure from known double beta decay of 244Pu). Not sure about Am though. I've seen some other sources say Am is natural from neutron-bombarded Pu, but they give the natural Am isotope as 239Am (implausible: that decays BACK to 239Pu!) and not the plausible 241Am! And I have still not seen a paper titled "Detection of Americium/Curium in Nature" or something like that. So I think we should go back to H–Pu (maybe + Cm). Double sharp (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)