Talk:Drude model: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:28, 30 April 2013

Physics Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Frequency range?

So up to what frequency can this model satisfactorily explain things?--Light current 22:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequacies

Inadequacy is relative to purpose. If Drude explicitly removed terms from his model fundamental to explaining the Hall effect, the appropriate term would be limitation, not inadequacy. Dispersion (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the section title. Han-Kwang (t) 08:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graph

Would it be useful to include an indicative graph of real and im sigma vs log(frequency)? I could whip one up quickly, if folk thought it worthwhile. Grj23 (talk) 11:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it can't hurt that's for sure.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. Let me know if you have any sensible feedback on it. I can be adjusted *relatively* easily... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grj23 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re(σ) and Im(σ) should be used instead of σ′ and σ′′ IMO. Also they should be both right aligned (for prettyness), if possible. Otherwise it looks good.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

It would be great to include a line or two on the pronunciation of "Drude". McGraw-Hill's Encyclopedia of Science & Technology suggests [drüd], but many people, (at least here in the US), say [drüdə]. What is the correct pronunciation? Kaschev (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your pronounciation help. Drude was a German. Therefore: the e should be pronounced, but the emphasis is on the u. The u is to be pronounced as oo in 'good'. The e is to be pronounced as in 'the', not as in 'he'. Alex Vermeulen, Zoetermeer, The Netherlands Jordaan12 (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I think you could go ahead and put that in. I personally like the (rhymes with prude) type approach, although perhaps IPA is better. Grj23 (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complex Permittivity of Metals

Hi all. As part of my academic work, I have produced the wavelength dependent permittivity and refractive index for quite a lot of metals produced using different models (Drude, Lorentz-Drude, Brendel-Bormann). I thought it would be useful to include somewhere here. Any suggestions on the best place for the data, and the appropriate format to plot it in (HTML5, static images, table, etc.)? Drnathanfurious (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong by a factor two?

It seems to me that the page considers the velocity/momentum of the electron just before scattering rather than the time-averaged velocity/momentum, and as a result states a conductivity which is a factor two too high. Can anyone confirm this? Or could I be making the same conceptual error that Drude supposedly made in his original paper? 2noob2banoob (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some citations/references? Drnathanfurious (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 11:56, 29 April 2013 edit 2noob2banoob (talk \| contribs) 5 edits →‎Wrong by a factor two?: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:28, 30 April 2013 edit undo Drnathanfurious (talk \| contribs) 67 edits →‎Wrong by a factor two? Next edit →
Line 35:		Line 35:

	It seems to me that the page considers the velocity/momentum of the electron just before scattering rather than the time-averaged velocity/momentum, and as a result states a conductivity which is a factor two too high. Can anyone confirm this? Or could I be making the same conceptual error that Drude supposedly made in his original paper? [[User:2noob2banoob\|2noob2banoob]] ([[User talk:2noob2banoob\|talk]]) 11:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)		It seems to me that the page considers the velocity/momentum of the electron just before scattering rather than the time-averaged velocity/momentum, and as a result states a conductivity which is a factor two too high. Can anyone confirm this? Or could I be making the same conceptual error that Drude supposedly made in his original paper? [[User:2noob2banoob\|2noob2banoob]] ([[User talk:2noob2banoob\|talk]]) 11:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

			Can you provide some citations/references? [[User:Drnathanfurious\|Drnathanfurious]] ([[User talk:Drnathanfurious\|talk]]) 08:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)