Talk:Dusty plasma

The terms of the equation need to be defined.

Should "q/m ~ √G" be "q/m ≈ √G"?

I hope "vxB" doesn't mean "v × B". — Omegatron 02:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that, all fixed. --Iantresman 08:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate

I must say that I don't like the fact that the book "Physics of the Plasma Universe" which is chiefly concerned with the pseudoscience of "the electric universe" is used as a reference here.--Deglr6328 23:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Physics of the Plasma Universe has NOTHING to do with the Electric Universe theory, and is published by a reputable publisher (1992, Springer-Verlag). If you can find (a) just ONE sentence in the book which suggests pseudoscience, (b) any mentions of the "Electric Universe" (c) any error in the section on dusty plasmas, then I'll remove the reference. Have you read it? --Iantresman 01:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"electric universe" "plasma universe" "plasma cosmology", it's all the same nuttyness.--Deglr6328 01:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Reference removed. It's not a particularly good or relevant reference anyways. Nonsuch 03:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I restored the citation. This is the actual book where some of the informatin for the article came from, and is in accordance with Wiki policy. What you personally think about plasma cosmology, is irrelevent to the discussion on dusty plasmas. --Iantresman 07:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The reference was deleted again, with no comment. I've restored it. Just to illustrate that it is a valid and relevant reference, take a look at recent citations of it in the peer-reviewed literature (from NASA ADS), one of which is from 2007 --Togr 10:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at these and I should point out that the references are generally for plasma cosmology and not dusty plasmas. --Nondistinguished 15:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference restoration

I would like to restore this deleted reference as the verifiable reliable secondary source for the section on Dynamics, and offer the following rationa le, unless there are verifiable reasons not to:

1. I contributed much of the section on Dynamics.[1] I used as my source, page 325 of the reference.[2] It is the source, making it both good and relevant.
2. I can not find any support for the description of the book by the other editors. I checked two peer reviewed reviews, witch have not a hint of the concerns of other editors.:
   * A 1993 review of the book [3] in the peer reviewed, scientific journal Astrophysics and Space Science describes it as "educational reading for any astrophysicist".
   * A 1994 review [4] of the book in the scientific journal Space Science Reviews, mentions the "useful appendix [..] on dusty and grain plasma"
3. The book has just been republished by the academic publishing company, Springer in 2012.[5]
4. I also checked whether the book is being used by textbooks as a reference, and found it in a range of books including "Soft X-Rays and Extreme Ultraviolet Radiation" (2007)[6], "Plasma Physics: Confinement, Transport and Collective Effect" (2005)[7], "An Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Magnetohydrodynamics"[8]
5. The book itself alleviates some of the editors' concerns. It's introduction notes that "Some of the interesting topics in contemporary astrophysics such as discordant redshifts and other cosmological issues are not discussed here" (preface, page v).
6. In conclusion, I find no evidence supporting the other editors' concerns, and none was offered. All indications are that this is a standard text book that verifies the information in the article.

Iantresman (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not a reliable source to be linking as it's clearly fringe. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. If it is "clearly fringe", can you offer a couple of sources that suggests this, as this does not seem to be reflected in any of the sources I provided. The more I look, the more I find it referenced throughout the standard mainstream literature, eg. in the scientific journal, Physics of Plasmas,[9] the peer-reviewed scientific journal Solar Physics,[10] the scientific journal Physics Letters,[11] and just this year, Applied Physics,[12]. I don't understand why all these publication would be using an unreliable source? --Iantresman (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have further checked with Coalition for Plasma Science, "a group of institutions, organizations, and companies" whose aims are to promote plasma science, with a long list of reputable members, whose education material includes a publication on Space Plasmas, and its Suggested Reading include Physics of the Plasma Universe. --Iantresman (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You googled for matches of the book and a group, that has an article, written by Peratt, that has the book as a reference is all you got? Also that something is in peer reviewed papers does not mean it is not a fringe viewpoint. Conformal cyclic cosmology is also a fringe viewpoint for example. We don't present fringe viewpoints as though they were mainstream. We also have WP:ONEWAY mentions only. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the article used by the Coalition for Plasma Science (who must consider Peratt a respectable reliable source), I also cited 4 peer-reviewed articles, to go with the 2 peer-reviewed articles I mentioned last time, plus the two text books, plus the two reviews (by peer-reviewed publications), plus the republication of the book by Springer. They all seem to contradict your conclusion. I don't know why you mentioned Conformal cyclic cosmology as it is not mentioned in the article, so it does not seem relevant. WP:ONEWAY does not seem to be relevant here either, the dynamics of dusty plasmas is not fringe. I repeat my suggestion. If the book is "clearly fringe", can you please offer a couple of sources that suggests this, so that other editors can review them. Iantresman (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you think 4 articles using the book shows? It shows nothing for our consideration here. The Plasma universe is a fringe viewpoint and it will not be getting space in this non-fringe article per WP:ONEWAY. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You included a link to an article on cosmology. If you recall, I noted that the the book includes nothing on cosmology. Published this year by a reputable scientific publisher, the 6 peer-reviewed articles and 2 textbooks demonstrates that the source (irrespective of whether it maybe fringe) is a reliable source for the information in the article. There are many more peer-reviewed citations to the book, including those in: the Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics,[13] Physical Review A,[14] Physical Review D,[15] Physical Review E,[16] Plasma Physics Reports,[17] Advances in Space Research,[18] European journal of physics,[19] and many more.

I am quite concerned that (a) we take information from the book but refuse to provide due credit (b) that peer-reviewed articles, academic books, and an industry organisations, all seem to contradict your conclusion (c) you have still not provided a verifiable source so that other editors can review your concerns. --Iantresman (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You are not using a good indicator. Cold fusion has a few papers published in journals every year, and even the occasional book, but it's still fringe. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I see this as clearly within the "fringe universe" regardless of if said universe is made of plasma or exaggeration. History2007 (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@Iantresman, no doubt you will support removing "Physics of the plasma universe" from Plasma universe. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@Enric Naval: I also don't think we are comparing like with like. Cold fusion is not generally accepted. Plasma astrophysics is pretty standard. As a comparison, we would need to find (a) a non-critical textbook on cold fusion that is either in print, or has been republished by a reputable scientific publisher in the last couple of years (I couldn't find any) (b) the same book is reviewed positively about the science (c) the book is use as a positive reliable source in peer-reviewed articles.

@History2007: You've also said "clearly", so I would welcome your sources, so that other editors can assess them.

@IRWolfie: I will be happy to discuss the book in the appropriate place. I am still looking forward to reviewing the source of your concern.

As far as I can tell from all the sources, the book satisfies WP:IRS as a reliable, published source, that is used extensively as a citation. --Iantresman (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@Iantresman: Don't you feel lonely here? History2007 (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have lots of verifiable sources keeping me and my source, company ;=) but thank you for asking. Congratulations on reaching 70,000+ edits, and I agree with your Russian roulette view of scientific content. --Iantresman (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You are essentially performing a classic wikilawyer. You are setting the requirements arbitrarily high, that another source must have dismissed your specific source. Drop the stick. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to the Wikilawyer section "Misuse of the term": "Because reasoned arguments in a debate necessarily include both elements of fact and references to principles, disputants who lack such an argument sometimes try to undermine arguments they can not otherwise overcome by just tossing out the naked accusation that their fact and principle marshaling opponent is a wiki-lawyer.".

  I am not requiring you to provide sources that dismiss mine, we may have sources that support opposing views. I am requesting an independent verifiable reliable source (ie. a fact) that supports your concerns, a basic requirement to identifying a reliable source. I could have claimed that the book was a reliable source, and we could have argued it ad infinitum. Instead, I provided evidence that the book is published by a respectable scientific publisher, provided two positive book reviews, and at least a dozen peer-reviewed citations to the book, and an industry organisation, all of which suggests that the book is a reliable source. The only suggestion that the book is not a reliable source, are the opinions of a couple of editors. We could argue ad infinitum, or you could offer a couple of sources so that any editor can assess and review your concerns.

  Editors are fallible. One editor has already mis-associated the 1992 edition of the book with the "electric universe" one version of which did not appear until 6 years later in 1998[20] and another version over a decade later in 2007.[21] A simple source supporting the association would have circumvented the mistake. Likewise, you have suggested that the book is "advocating plasma cosmology"[22], and I have provided a source from the book, that you can check yourself, indicating that it does not (my point #5 above). All you have to do is provide a couple sources that lets other editors check for themselves. --Iantresman (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There are many perfectly good Plasma books you could have used for this article. You have choosen this book for it's very obvious connection to plasma universe, rather than the many other very ordinary books. You are asking for a source to say that a specific book of a pretty obscure fringe theory is itself fringe? Please, plasma cosmology and the "plasma universe" is so fringe now there is next to no mainstream response. I'm rather curious about it's claims to notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I already used other citations such as adding those for Mendis and Hill,[23] and the citation to Merlino.[24] The fact is that the section on dynamics was sourced to Physics of the Plasma Universe, as I demonstrated in my very first point #1 above, which I used because the mainstream scientific literature readily used it too, and it had a section devoted to the topic in question. I am asking for a source, that says anything negative about the book, from which we can infer that it is not reliable as you suggested. All the sources I have provided seem to contradict your characterisation. For example, you have mentioned "plasma cosmology" now for the third time, and as I have previously shown with a quote, (my point #5, above), the quote seems to contradict this characterisation.

  As you are a man of science, I am sure you would be the first to extol the virtues of independent sources to review facts. If you refer to the section on reliable sources in WP:FRINGE you will find that the book meets WP:IRS in every way. My research suggests that the book is satisfactory. I would be more than happy for you to replace the citation with another relevant book, it's just that my other books on plasma did not have a section on the dynamics of dusty plasmas. --Iantresman (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Rename to "complex plasma"?

The research community in this field decided on the term "complex plasma" to replace "dusty plasma" a few years back. Perhaps this article should be moved? --Togr 17:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• This page title seems to suggest that complex plasmas encompass dusty plasma, colloidal Plasma, and Plasma Crystals? --Iantresman 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It sure looks that way, but that was not the way I understood the terms. I'll ask my (dusty|complex) plasma expert sources to comment (citing the meeting source if I can find it) and get back to you --Togr 18:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here is what my friend wrote in the introduction to his PhD thesis on complex (dusty) plasmas:

Complex plasmas is a new name of the field better known as dusty plasmas, and was officially adopted at the IV European workshop on dusty and colloidal plasmas, in Costa da Caparica, Portugal, June 3--5, 2000. Although the old term (dusty plasma) is more descriptive of the physical media at hand—"a plasma with dust in it"—we will for the introductory parts of this thesis try to stick to the new term (complex plasma), reflecting the current trend among researchers in the field. The origin of the term complex plasmas is an analogy to the field of complex fluids, which is the field of condensed matter involving colloidal suspension, as well as similar media containing small particles. Another name—colloidal plasmas—is also often encountered, but this name is used for collision-dominated plasmas under laboratory environments typical for the plasma chambers used in industrial processes.

Brattli, A.: Complex plasmas in planetary rings, the Earth's mesopause, and laboratory experiments. Dissertation for the degree of Dr. Scient., University of Tromsø, May 2001

Hope that helps --Togr 10:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Complex Plasma is a wide field dealing with plasmas that are complex. To be more precise, it includes dusty plasmas as well as - for example - reactive plasmas or plasmas with a lot of plasma chemistry going on. Thus - from this (newer) definitiopn - a dusty plasma is a complex plasma, but a complex plasma is not necessarily a dusty one. By the way: There is also a difference between a plasma with dust and a dusty plasma. If the dust is strongly coupled due to coulomb interaction, it shows collective behavior and can, thus, be seen as an additional plasma component. Then the term dusty plasma is correct. In case of dust in a plasma, there is just dust in the plasma, which may be charged but that's it (like in comet tails, saturn rings and interstellar dust clouds). --134.245.68.53 (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Anyybody still watching this article?

Concerning the discussion about dusty/complex plasma: The term 'dusty plasma' came first, then there was an attempt to switch to 'complex plasma' for the controlled laboratory experiments. A short quote from this article: G.E. Morfill and A. V. Ivlev, Complex plasmas: An interdisciplinary research field, Rev. Mod. Phys., 2009, vol. 81, p. 1353: "Complex plasmas are composed of a weakly ionized gas and charged microparticles. The name was originally chosen in analogy to “complex liquids,” which defines the class of soft matter systems that exist in the liquid form. The important point (which incidentally also marks the difference with respect to most naturally occurring dusty plasmas) is that the microparticles are the dominant component as regards energy and momentum transport so that these systems can be “engineered” as practically single-species media. Naturally the detailed physics of interaction between the components determines the “material” properties of complex plasmas— they are thermodynamically open non-Hamiltonian systems and can exist in gaseous, liquid, and solid forms." So, the person above me wrote switched things around. In fact, dusty plasmas include complex plasmas, but not the other way around. I think we should keep the article named Dusty Plasma. (Sternenstaub (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC))

First paragraph

Concerning these sentences: Dust particles may be charged and the plasma and particles behave as a plasma,[1][2] following electromagnetic laws for particles up to about 10 nm (or 100 nm if large charges are present). Dust particles may form larger particles resulting in "grain plasmas".

I think there is a lot that's easy to misunderstand in this paragraph, or that's outright wrong:

• the dust particles are always charged in a dusty plasma
• the particles do not behave as a plasma, they only behave as a solid, liquid or gas. The plasma of course always behaves as a plasma
• the interaction between the dust particles always follows 'electromagnetic laws', as they are always charged. Even much larger particles than 100 nm interact via a screened Coulomb potential.
• The nanometer-sized particles often agglomerate to form larger particles, yes. The term 'grain plasma' is extremely uncommon (Google finds only 3,540 results, the first of which is Wikipedia). Plasmas containing microparticles are also called dusty or complex plasmas.

I'd suggest replacing the quoted paragraph with this: The dust particles are charged, for instance by collecting particles from the surrounding plasma or by charging via ultraviolet light. The dust particles can thus interact with each other via the electromagnetic force. The dust particles can also stick together and grow in size. If the electromagnetic interaction between the dust particles is of the same strength as the gravitational interaction, the system is called "grain plasmas". Dusty plasmas in which the dust is the dominant component regarding energy and momentum transport are called "complex plasma", in analogy to complex liquids. Complex plasmas are often studied in specifically designed laboratory experiments. (Sternenstaub (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC))

I think I was considering that since the dust was charged to -10 < Q < +1V, negatively due to electrons, positively due to the photoelectric effect, and consequently this could have included the case of where Q=0. I guess by definition, if the dust becomes uncharged, then it no longer becomes a dusty plasma?

I got the impression that the dust may behave as a plasma. Solids, liquids and gases do not respond to EM forces, and the degree of coupling to the background plasma would determine whether the dust behaves as a plasma. Mendis and Rosenberg describe two regimes which they call "dust-in-plasma" and a true "dust-plasma",[25] and I assume that in the latter, the collective behavior of the dust is plasma-like?

I'd also be delighted if you would look over my "Reference restoration" comments above.

--Iantresman (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

As an independent observer with a science background, I did look at your comments there, and commented in less than a delighted form. Sorry, it is fringe. History2007 (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)