User talk:Chjoaygame

Welcome!

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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

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

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

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

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

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 128.231.77.30 (talk • contribs)

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 —128.231.77.217 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · 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

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

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

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

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

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

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." 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

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 (talk • contribs)

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 ...

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

Your editing.

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHeat&diff=523991324&oldid=523986970 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heat&diff=prev&oldid=524269547 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

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

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

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)

Please

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

Meteorology? Metrology?

Say Chjoaygame, I notice in your latest intervention ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heat&curid=19593167&diff=529837523&oldid=529836867 ) 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

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....

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

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?

[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 ....

...care 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

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, 71.192.188.52, 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 71.192.188.52 . 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?

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 ΔS_univ = ΔS + ΔS_ext > 0, so ΔS_ext > -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

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

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

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)