Talk:Hydrogen spectral series

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

Merge proposal[edit]

As the separate pages contain little information that isn't duplicated here, I will merge them into this article, retaining all additional information, unless there are any objections? OrangeDog (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This would also involve changing the existing pages to redirect, and removing Template:Hydrogen spectral series-footer. OrangeDog (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I have performed a partial merger, leaving Lyman and Balmer with their separate pages, as they are significantly more developed. OrangeDog (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
No. What you've done is okay, leaving the others as summary-main redirects. But more would be working backwards. Wikipedia grows by means of WP:SS. You don't help Wikipedia grow by finding places to merge stubs, just because they're stubs. Separate articles are places which invite people to find and add more specific information. Leave them alone to grow, unless they are merely renaming. SBHarris 22:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Should the remaining series become notable in their own right I'm sure WP:SS will take affect as more info can be added. Until then, this seems the optimal solution. –OrangeDog (talkedits) 02:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for B-class.[edit]

It is now referenced enough IMO. A few suggestions

  • It would now be nice if the symbols were present as well. I recall the Lyman series being represent by symbols like Lα, Lβ, ... or maybe it was Ly-α, Ly-β, ... Giving the symbols for each series would add a lot to the article's completeness. Green tickY
  • The next thing that this article needs, is a energy level diagram showing the transitions. Green tickY
  • Building spectral images for the other series would make the article feel more complete
  • But no such image is possible, as the lines aren't visible; they would just be hand-drawn subsets of an energy level diagram. How would you present this? OrangeDog (talkedits)
  • The Lyman series manages to get a picture just fine even though it's in the UV. I'd follow that example. An also, perhaps the entire hydrogen spectra could be presented (using a log scale?) with the Lyman, Balmer, ... series identified. Green tickY Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think images for every series is a good idea:
  • Every series is exactly the same shape.
  • Higher series overlap.
  • The photographic plates used in the discoveries are really boring.
OrangeDog (talkedits) 16:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • What about discussing (at the very least) the general character of the n′ > 6 cases ? Green tickY
  • "Extension" seems like a bad title for that section. You'd expect the other cases (n′ > 6) being discussed in that section instead of the relation to other atomic spectra Green tickY
  • Don't other alkali metals exhibit similar spectra due to their valence electron being in an s-type orbital? Could be wrong here.
  • I don't think that in general there's any useful comparison to be drawn. With more than one electron the complexity explodes.
  • Discussing the cases of He+, Li2+, and (in general) other 1-electron ions of any elements (doubt you need to explicitely mention Fe25+...)
  • Oh a simple paragraph or two discussing their basic features should be enough. Stull like how higher series aren't that useful since they involved very long wavelengths compared to what induces molecular/atomic transitions.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • A bit more history about these lines could be given. Were each of these series observed in solar spectra first? Some in solar spectra, others in lab experiments? Green tickY

Hum that's it so far. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. OrangeDog (talkedits) 20:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Listing symbols in the table would add something IMO (see below) [possible that I got the symbols wrong, I didn't pay attention].

n 2 3 4 5 6
Symbol Ly-α Ly-β Ly-δ Ly-ε Ly-γ Ly-∞
λ (nm) 122 103 97.2 94.9 93.7 91.1

Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems a bit redundant to me as the naming method is already mentioned. I don't think there are canonical symbols either, just various abbreviations for Lyman alpha &c. OrangeDog (talkedits) 23:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Some suggestions[edit]

As a general note you might want to read WP:LEAD and WP:BCLASS (if you haven't already) as they can give general hints as to improve articles in general. More specific:

  • The lead should be a reflection of the content of the article. Right now the lead contains a lot of information that does not appear anywhere else in the article. There should probably be section in the article discussing the relation between the Rydberg formula and the Hydrogen series. Its contents should be summarized in the lead.
  • How standard is the usage of n' and n as variables in the Rydberg formula? Not everyone will be familiar with using primed letters as variables, so if we can avoid this we probably should. n and m would work fine. Or n and k.
    Every source listed (and others I've seen) use primed variables. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 13:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The article should mention that n' < n.
  • Generally, the prose in the article needs more fleshing out. Currently, the article consists of a bunch of one-line section, which doesn't look too good. Maybe do some research and find something useful to say about each of the series.
    The only problem is there really isn't anything else to say about most of the series, hence the merging. They don't really have any applications are are not the subject of any research, outside of their initial discoveries and confirmation. That's about as fleshed out as Brackett series is going to get. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 13:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Now that most of the series articles have been merged here, their respective {{main}} templates should be removed since they redirect to this article. On a related note the redirects should redirect to the appropriate subsection of this article.
  • I would float the series tables to the right and have the (fleshed out) text wrap around them.
  • The article should elaborate some more on the lines not in any series.
    But those don't fall under the title of "Hydrogen spectral series" OrangeDog (talk • edits) 13:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It would be interesting to have some material on how these series were discovered and are studied, etc.

Hope these suggestions help. (TimothyRias (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

I'll get onto the other stuff at some point. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 13:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Recalled that some series from Paschen on overlap- (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Wavelengths of lines[edit]

I bring up this discussion because I'm curious as to the reasons for what I see as an error. The emission line wavelength of Pa-alpha is 1875.64 (observed) or 1874.607 (using the value of the Rydberg Constant on the page). OrangeDog insists that the page should display 1870 nm, as this is three significant figures, using the formula on the page. However, I think this is misleading, as the number "1870" as presented indicates that there are four significant figures. (Despite the easy to miss note at the top of the page declaring all the wavelengths presented are only three significant figures.) If we really only intend to present three significant figures, then the wavelength should be presented as "1.87*10^3 nm". Perhaps someone can enlighten me in the view of presenting this as "1870 nm", particularly when the Rydberg Constant is presented with many more significant figures? I'm sure this issue must affect the other lines on the page. Uayebforever (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Now you point it out, it probably should be written as 1.87, but I'd go for μm rather than the exponent. In order to avoid problems reconciling various sources giving empirical values to various precisions, I felt it would be better to peg to a single source and give the calculated values. The choice of 3sf means it agrees with most other sources (apart from this one value) and other readers/editors don't get confused as to why the numbers don't match, or the equation is "wrong". OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Pronounciation of Pfund[edit]

It would be good to add a phonetic pronunciation of Pfund given that this is used in intro chem textbooks and online students may come here to figure that out. I presume that it is pronounced as "Fund" (e.g.: ), but could not verify that from another source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Atomic number Z[edit]

The section on the Rydberg formula says "where z is the atomic number, i.e. the number of protons in the atomic nucleus of this element" z is not in the formula here nor any place in section. Perhaps this is mistake from coping this section from elsewhere? Love! this article though, its great easy to read info. Tpsawyer (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I have tried to clarify it. Is it fine now? :) extra999 (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)