Talk:Energy

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

{{ |target=Talk:Energy/Archive index |mask=Talk:Energy/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}}

undoing of valid corrections[edit]

This edit unjustifiably undoes a series of edits that were mostly valid. There are many grammatical errors in the article that need corrections such as many of the undone edits.[[User:Chjoaygame2017 (UTC)

Page number and missing word for the other Feynman quote[edit]

1. The quote on conservation of energy from Feynman is found on page 4-1 Energy is human values of food calories — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.16.84.62 (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

2. The quote is missing the word "the"

"does not change in manifold changes" --> "does not change in THE manifold changes"

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2016[edit]

Simple word deletion in the last sentence of the section

Energy transfer Closed systems

Energy transfer can be considered for the special case of systems which are closed to transfers of matter. The portion of the energy which is transferred by conservative forces over a distance is measured as the work the source system does on the receiving system. The portion of the energy which does not do work doing during the transfer is called heat.[note 4]

The word DOING should be deleted from the last sentence in his section.

124.148.135.42 (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested change made. Dhrm77 (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

== Methanation ==I have just modified one external link on Energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

(pls. ignore) please explain protected Energy [move=sysop][edit]

Edit: Apologies, my earlier post was from a misunderstanding that occurred when I was suddenly unable to save my edits.DavRosen (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi DavRosen. The protection was put in place January 2011, not this month. At the time there was disruption as shown by the link here in the protection message. It is not about your editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying DavRosen (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Conservation of energy and mass in transformation (nuclear)[edit]

In the section of "Conservation of energy and mass in transformation" the author confuses the amount of energy that is released from a nuclear explosion and the amount needed to break the atomic bonds of an atom and the E=mc squared equation. c squared is not the amount of energy you get when splitting an atom. It is the amount of energy that is holding the atom together. Therefore the amount of energy from a hydrogen or an atomic bomb explosion is different depending on how you explode it. They both use plutonium or radioactive uranium as a source of energy even though it is possible to use non radioactive isotopes as a source of energy. Note that a hydrogen bomb has much more energy than an atomic bomb. Hydrogen bombs use an atomic pre explosion to set off the hydrogen bomb explosion. There is no theoretical limit as to the power of a hydrogen bomb explosion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.80.4 (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

"Defining"[edit]

This section makes no sense - from the title to its run-on sentence. Please rewrite. Geroniminor (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This unsourced confusing section, as far as I can understand it, is wrong; energy is perfectly well defined in physics regardless of the form it comes in. The section should be deleted. The only valid point made is the same point as the following section makes; that energy comes in different forms. --ChetvornoTALK 05:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2017[edit]

Civilisation to Civilization 198.217.30.212 (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The article has a British English tag. Also, see MOS:RETAIN. Simplexity22 (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

"derives its energy mainly from nuclear fusion" (in Sun picture caption)[edit]

In the caption of the picture in the intro, it is unclear precisely how the term "derives" (in 2nd of 2 sentences) is related to the specific concepts and aspects of energy discussed in this article. Can this sentence be changed to use more rigorous terminology such as energy transformation/conversion, energy transfer, and maybe nuclear binding energy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.253.142 (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

How about something like:

The Sun is the source of energy for most of life on Earth. As a star, the Sun is heated to high temperatures by the conversion of nuclear binding energy due to the fusion of hydrogen in its core. This energy is ultimately transferred (released) out into space mainly in the form of radiant (light) energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.253.142 (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2017[edit]

2601:140:C000:85A0:3595:4000:4E28:B2CC (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 22:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Fundamental definition[edit]

Non random probabilistic flow of information in the Planckian order of magnitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8805:BE00:7835:D0E0:4068:2D65 (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)