Talk:Particle receiver

Potential issues

hi, i am not a professional in this field since i am biomedical engineer. Nevertheless, these kind of objects seem to be highly-reflective and potentially hazardous if the light is reflected towardd the airplane cockpit in the sky. Maybe i missed it in the article but it could be worth mentioning that the design and mnufacturing of these products have to account for this problem and find solutions to minimize the risks associated.

However, many compliments for the well-done article. 94MC94 (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@94MC94 Hi, thanks a lot for the feedback. Unfortunately, I did not find anything in literature related to this, but if I find anything I will write it in the article as soon as possible Shoba98 (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Free falling receiver

Hi! In the "free falling receiver" section, you mention a "pioneering work carried out by Martin and Vitko ", I was wondering why you haven't cited it in the References. I would be curious to read it :) --~~~~ Eleniccc (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would make the first sentence in the incipit shorter as it makes the reading a bit complex (especially for non-experts like me). You may consider splitting it into two lines? Eleniccc (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eleniccc Hi, thanks a lot for the feedback. I added the reference you suggested and divided the first sentence in two Shoba98 (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed article

Hi! Congrats for your article, very interesting. I changed one word that in my opinion fits better in the final section. If I may give you a suggestion the opening line of the article maybe is too long. Frafra27 (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Frafra27 Thanks a lot! I divided the first sentence into two according to your suggestion Shoba98 (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Observations and suggestions for improvements

The following observations and suggestions for improvements were collected, following an expert review of the article within the Science, Technology, Society and Wikipedia course at the Politecnico di Milano, in July 2023.

The article is clear and well organized. In the "particle selection" paragraph I would have mentioned more clearly what type of materials are considered as "natural materials" (I guess sand for example). Moreover I would add a table with the more relevant characteristics of the 3-4 most commonly considered particles (e.g. typical diameters, reflectivity, density, emissivity, etc). Sandia is misspelled in the last line.

--Aandurro (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]