Talk:Robert Hooke

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

Birth date[edit]

Hooke was born on July 18, not the 28. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Old Style birth date 18 July 1635 has been converted to New Style 28 July, and marked appropriately. But that raises the question of why the same conversion hasn't been applied to the death date 3 March 1703 (unless it actually has been converted from 20 February). If it hasn't been converted, the NS death date would be 14 March, to match the NS birth date. Can anyone comment on this? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2014[edit]

The origin of the use of cell comes from Micrographia, where the structure of cork is likened to the cells of a honeycomb, yet the text repeats the myth about cells in a monastery. The link to monks should be replaced by a link to honeycomb. (verbatim "the resemblance of plant cells to monks' cells" should be replaced with "the resemblance of plant cells to cells in honeycomb")

The same request has been made on the cell (biology) page which quotes the relevant passage likening cork to a honeycomb.

Pete Kirkham (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The relevant passage of Micrographia is Observation XVIII on cork where the word 'cell' is introduced, in which Hooke compares the 'pores' in cork with cells of honeycomb.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the observation read:
"First, in that it had a very little solid substance in comparison of the empty cavity that was contain'd between, as does more manifestly appear by the Figure A and B of the XI Scheme, for the intersitia, or walls ( as I may so call them) or partitions of those pores were near as thin in proportion to their pores, as those thin films of Wax in a honey-comb (which enclose and constitute the hexangular cells) are to theirs .
Next, in that these pores, or cells, where not very deep, but consisted of a great many little Boxes, separated out of one continued long pore, by certain diaphragms, as is visible by the Figure B, which represents a sight of the those pores split the long-ways..."
In paragraph 2 Hooke compares the walls of the 'pores' in cork to the walls of cells in honeycomb. In paragraph 3 and on through history, they are referred to as 'cells'. No comparison is made to monastic accommodation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete Kirkham (talkcontribs) 00:58, 10 July 2014
Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I can't seem to access this source to verify the passage exists. —cyberpower ChatOnline 08:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Donecyberpower ChatOnline 09:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No explicit mention of "Hooke's Law"??[edit]

Apparently this is an omission; dancing around it exhaustively, but never explicitly mentioning one of the most ubiquitous algebraic relationships of physics - the notion of a proportional restoring force. Someone overseeing this ought link to the Wikipedia article on "Hooke's Law" and maybe even show what it is. Wikibearwithme (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Noting the link - contrary to common opinion among chemists and engineers, "elasticity" in physical mechanics does not refer to returning to an original "shape" or necessarily changing shape at all (much less to a proportional restoring force) - it refers to mechanical energy conserved as momentum, rather than dissipating by other means (heat). I don't know how many poorly educated professors I've heard reiterate this superficial understanding. "Hooke's Law" is not the "law of elasticity." Who made up this imaginary history? Wikibearwithme (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The infobox at the top includes Hooke's law at the top of "Known for" so it is mentioned. The dancing-around text at Robert Hooke#Mechanics is just an attempt at good writing—it would look pretty silly to say "Hooke discovered Hooke's law". Regarding "law of elasticity"—that is a little unfortunate as it carries a misleading suggestion, but the "which describes" a few words later is accurate. It's better to not speculate about other editors, just point out any perceived problem in the text. Ideally the wording in question would be quoted with a brief reason why it's a problem. A suggestion for an improvement, or an edit, would be even better. Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2016[edit]

He wore wigs — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2016[edit]

Please change " editor-last = Chapman | editor-first = Allan | editor = Paul Kent " to " editor-last1 = Chapman | editor-first1 = Allan | editor-last2 = Kent | editor-first2 = Paul " for the book "Robert Hooke and the English Renaissance" because the inconsistent style causes a CS1 error. (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for the corrected citation - Arjayay (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)