Talk:Transparent ceramics

Article

A non-scientific though worthy link/reference, if someone can find an appropriate external link;

In Star Trek IV, Scotty is faced with the logistical challenge of physically moving 2 20th-century whales. He poses as a Professor from a Scottish University and informs an engineer on how to manufacture the 24th-century innovation of "transparent aluminium".

Wrong article. This article is about transparent alumina, not transparent aluminium. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Additions from Logger9

copied from the talk page of Logger9; please continue here. --Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 05:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Transparent_alumina here contain material taken from here, here, and here, among others. As someone who claims to be a professor, do you really not know that posting this material on Wikipedia is unethical and against the rules here?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Glengarry (talk • contribs)

It is likely that Logger owns the copyright to those, per Talk:Colloidal crystal. I'll give him an email and see if he does indeed own the copyright and is willing to release under GFDL. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 01:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Under multiple pseudonyms? Are you kidding me? On the colloidal talk page, it was found that Logger9 had lifted material from Ratner's Biomaterials. Did he or she write that too? Note that Logger9 removed all related discussion from the talk page --Glengarry (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I really would not categorize that. Part of the convo reads:

From the author. Re: Theory and Background section. The paper that you refer to is my own website, which has already been cleared for copyright permissions with Wikipedia. I also did a complete re-write of that section just so it would not be a verbatim copy of that material. logger9 (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that a GFDL release has been received from wavesignal.com at OTRS:2323476. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

However, I don't know the particulars of the situation, so I'll just back off until Logger replies. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 17:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the most constructive way to approach this is line by line. (The first time this came up, it turned out that I was being accused of copying my own website material).

1) In the first description of the absence of a definition for the term "transparent", I may have initially stayed too close to the author's original text. But the thing that I really don't understand here is that I decided on my own to remove that material completely from the article (in its entirety) over a month ago !

Please note that in the case that material was still posted there, I would be happy to completely re-phrase that section -- or even remove it in its entirety if that were necessary for Wikipedia approval. I am not looking for a fight here. I am looking for a quality product.

2) It would appear that the second reference (to an extremely brief website on transparent ceramics) is virtually unfounded. There is nothing there that is not more thoroughly covered on related websites.

3) In the third case of an Internet article on a "Simple Route to Nd:YAG Transparent Ceramics", I am certain that I cited a fair amount of data from that article, and referenced it clearly. Again, whatever material you feel needs to be re-phrased (or even omitted), I am completely negotiable to.

It is not my intention to plagiarize ideas and concepts from other authors. With an extensive background in the field (I have been following the development of transparent ceramics since the development of Sol-gel technology in the mid-80's) it is my most sincere goal to highlight for Wikipedia readers the cutting edge of this field through extensive searching of the literature. If my pen or keyboard gets too close to theirs at times, I wish to express my most heartfelt regrets and apologies. But try not to punish our readers for my occasional indiscretion. If the work needs to rephrased, then that can readily be done at any time. That way, the bulk of the best avaiable current information still gets to our audience. :-)

I would recommend guarding against the limiting of creative presentation of fundamental scientific ideas and concpets, based on issues of territorialism and personal agendas. It is obvious in this case that the author does not appreciate any or all of my work, since it has been removed from the article in its entirety. A 21 kB article has now been reduced back to 7 kB -- simply because that author is not willing to compromise or accept the work of an experienced colleague. Therefore, I have republished my changes to the article on Transparent alumina here. Please feel free to review and advise. -- logger9 (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In reviewing the brief article on "A Simple Route to Nd:YAG transparent materials", it would appear to me that those accusations are clearly unfounded also. That was a very short and helpful article, but there is no strong crossover between my presentation (and/or material) and theirs -- other than the raw material and the general description of applications, which is available in dozens of other articles I have clearly cited as basic reference material. So that makes three for three.

I am very sorry that my co-worker is so dead-set on giving me a bad name. I would hope that we can reach some form of compromise for the benefit of all who put in their valuable time and energy for Wikipedia. I think we will find that the amount we can accomplish as a team far outweighs the alternatives. -- logger9 (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

We currently have five pictures in this article, and none of them actually shows a transparent ceramic. Are there really no photos available? In any case, what we have now comes across as a bit "image desperate", maybe it would be better to cut out a couple. 186.105.157.139 (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletions of laser material by MS

I really do wish that you could refrain from immediately deleting my contributions to this article. The image I added of a high powered Nd:YAG laser is directly related to this material, especially as it is a prime example of a transparent ceramic (yttria-alumina). In that spirit, I am re-posting my recent edits/additions to the article. logger9 (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(i) You have added two images: one of semiconductor laser and one of a large-scale laser facility. Neither of them uses transparent ceramics. They are nice illustration, but for a laser related article. (ii) You moved another laser image to the lead; which again does not use transparent ceramics; (iii) By moving that image with its caption you have put undue accent on laser applications in the lead. The image caption clearly reflects the current situation - those application are possible, but are only a proposal. This undue shift does violate WP:LEAD. Materialscientist (talk) 04:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

None of this is true....

• I have only added one image -- the one in the section on high-powered lasers. The image which is now in the lead section was originally in the lower section, where you had no objections to it at that point.
• The added image includes a high powered Nd:YAG laser, which is one of the best examples of an industrial application of a transparent ceramic composed primarily of ytrria alumina garnet.
• The most widespread and potentially valuable application of transparent ceramics in both the industrial and military sectors is as a high powered laser host. These are not just proposals, but recent scientific advances of which you are obviously not aware.
• Your objections (and behavior) are totally and completely unfounded. Please desist from editing and deleting helpful and valuable material from this technologically important article. I would sincerely hope that you can find more appropriate ways of spending both your and my valuable time. Thanks for your time and consideration in this matter. logger9 (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A typical Nd:YAG laser is made with a Nd:YAG single crystal, typically grown using the Czochralski process. Some of the papers you cite show that some researchers have been able to make ceramic Nd:YAG and get it to lase. The article as it stands seems to be written to conflate this work with the well-established uses of (non-ceramic) Nd:YAG lasers. At this stage, a single sentence to suggest what additional benenfits ceramic Nd:YAG might be able to provide over current technologies might be appropriate, broadly appropriating the entire field of industrial lasers is not.

To comment on process: everything Materialscientist said was true. He said "You have added two images: one of semiconductor laser and one of a large-scale laser facility." That would be this edit. To respond that "I have only added one image" seems to me to be somewhat disingenious. You also ignored the technical content of his objections - that the images show lasers that don't use transparent ceramics, and that given the current state of technology (at least as I understand it from the provided references) your changes give undue weight to speculation about future laser applications. Djr32 (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There appears to a problem of semantics here....

• A typical Nd:YAG laser is made with a Nd:YAG single crystal, which is, in fact, a ceramic substance by definition, with a chemical compositon based on yttria, Y₂O₃, and alumina, Al₂O₃.
• As you are likley aware, this ceramic compound is doped with Neodimium, Nd, in order to effect the necessary physical properties for this particular application. Moreover:
• As I said previously , I have only added one image. The "second image" in question (currently in the Introduction section) was originally located further down in the article. Interestingly, before I shifted its position, there were no objections to the image.
• I appreciate you calling my attention to the fact that yttria itself is now being considered for solid state lasers (as is Lu₂O₃), with ytterbium (Yb+) as the effective dopant in both of these compounds.

• Thanks for the insight ! logger9 (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• On semantics, you did add 2 images and recently removed one; calling single crystal ceramics is not encyclopedical at best, but what worried and worries me more is that you proclaimed that (sintered) ceramics are a major and active application in the active media of lasers. I would strongly appreciate reliable secondary references on that. Your claim of "no past objection" is irrelevant because the same text/image bears different meaning in the lead and deep inside the article. Materialscientist (talk) 05:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• To argue over whether any particular chemical compound is a ceramic based on its degree of crystallinity (whether polycrystalline, as most are, or single crystalline, if processed properly) is a moot point at best.
• Indeed, I removed the inapplicable half of a double image.
• Within the context of high-powered lasers, I said nothing about sintered ceramics. In fact, you did. 06:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

<indent>As far as I know, the material form of commercial laser rods is still called "crystal" or "glass", and when the word "ceramic(s)" is used, it implies polycrystals (sintered or not is not an issue). Thus reliable references please, either on that "laser crystals are called ceramics" or that "(polycrystalline) ceramic lasers" are an active commercial application. Materialscientist (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Introduction to Ceramics (Kingery, Bowen and Uhlmann)

2nd edition, Wiley Interscience (2006)

Chapter 1: Ceramic Processes and Products

Section 1.2: Ceramic Processes, p.15

There is an increasing number of applications in which it is necessary or desirable to have single-crystal ceramics because of special optical....properties.

Section 1.3: Ceramic Products -- New Ceramics, p.17

Single crystals of a variety of materials are now being manufactured, either to replace natural crystals which are unavailable or for their own unique properties. Ruby and garnet laser crystals and sapphire tubes and substrates are grown from a melt. Large quartz crystals are grown by a hydrothermal process.

I sincerely hope and trust that this will be sufficient to convince you that, with a B.S. Degree in Ceramic Engineering (UW, 1982) and a Master's Degree in Materials Science and Engineering (UCLA, 1983), I am fully aware of the definition of what a ceramic is. I look forward to working with you on that level :-) logger9 (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely immaterial who we are; but it is important what we can write. Your writing was not impressive so far and you haven't answered any of my questions. Materialscientist (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Logger: the Kingery, Bowen and Uhlmann book that you cite was published in 1976, rather than 2006 as you claim, so its talk of "increasing number of applications" and "now being manufactured" might be a bit less cutting edge than you suggest! It's clearly not talking about Nd:YAG lasers made using polycrystalline ceramic materials... Djr32 (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You might want to check out the Wiley Student Edition (Copyright 2006). Regarding your final statement: you are absolutely correct.

Polycrystalline applications and developments are far more recent and cutting edge -- as pointed out clearly in the introduction to the article :-) logger9 (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The 2nd edition was published in 1976 (by Wiley Interscience, as per your original statement) can be seen at this link, and appears to contain the text that you quote above. Are books published under the Wiley Student Edition imprint usually low cost re-printings sold outside North America, or am I thinking of a different educational publisher? I can't see any sign online of anything from 2006, but that could be because it's a later reprinting that isn't available in the UK - could you provide a link please? Djr32 (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not have a link. I just have a used copy of the printed text from Amazon.com. I am guessing that you could find one located there for a reasonable price -- as I did. Good luck :-) logger9 (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW your image showing the large laser faciltiy (approaching hte size of a football field) is that of the NOVA laser which was a glass based laser and there was no YAG in this laser. YOu should delete or modify this image. This isn't semantics at all...there are no large lasers using YAG currently, only glass, to do fusion experiments.::: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.204 (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed Powder preparation subsection

because

• WP:PRIMARY - it was a summary of a few selected short articles published in minor journals by minor research groups. The headers of the paragraphs were speaking for themselves "One Iranian groups" .. "Another Indian group", "One Chinese group" [has shown that]
• WP:UNDUE - those articles were on sol-gel synthesis, which is a topic of sol-gel article, [many of them] they do not speak of transparent ceramics or evaluate the optical transparency. Materialscientist (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"Future" plagiarized?

I was reading the "Future" section and it sounded very much like advertising or PR, so I followed the citations (to, e.g., http://business.highbeam.com/413107/article-1G1-84255397/transparent-alumina-ceramic-developed) and found the text copied almost verbatim from the outside sources. It should be noted that the sites I found clearly claim Copyright/All Rights Reserved, so absent any extenuating information it certainly seems like this copying is impermissible.

Furthermore, the tone ("literally invisible" etc.) seems inappropriate for WP. So unless there are objections, I think the best approach is to just delete the section in question and start anew.

Thoughts/objections? shultzc (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A major contributor to this article used to copy/paste large blocks of text without rewriting in many articles. Removed. Materialscientist (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks for doing that. shultzc (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Relevant images

Most of the the photos (or all of the photos) in this article were published without specific connection to "transparent ceramics". The only connection between these photos and "transparent ceramics" is this article. The sources of these photos do not explicitly connect the subject of this article to the subject of the photo. This appears to be synthesis WP:SYN. If the sources do not connect the images to "transparent ceramics" then that seems to be an original, and unsourced use of the photos. On the other hand, some of the captions clearly point to the fact that these are simply off topic. I am looking for some relevant images. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Laser Image

Another problem with the laser image under 'crystals' is that it is referred to "...as large as a football field". Is that an American football field or a 'soccer' field? Please, can we use meters/yards/feet in lieu of FFs or stories/storys: reserve those units for use on the Discovery Channel. LorenzoB (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess I never did get back to trying to find other images :>). So, in this case I will say an image of a laser is an image of a laser. This image seems related to the Wikipedia article Nova (laser). Maybe some sort of size description is mentioned in this article. If not see what is on the web. This particular laser is (apparently) no longer in existence according to our humble article. However, that does not mean that information cannot be found on it. In addition, I don't have any problem with changing the units of measurements to what they really are such as meters, or feet, or whatever. In fact why not have both meteric and "english" measurements. So if you see other such approximations (football field) feel free to change it. (Unless some other editors have a problem with that). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the Definition of "Spinel"?

Hello, this is a super interesting article! The word "spinel" is used a few times. I know nothing about ceramics as I would imagine many people reading the article. Could someone include the definition of the word "spinel" so that the article is even clearer? ty173.180.7.3 (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)BeeCier

EDIT: Ok, I just found the "spinel" article on Wikipedia. So now I'm hoping someone with knowledge of Wikipedia will link the word "spinel" to its Wiki article. ty173.180.7.3 (talk) 10:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)BeeCier

It was linked, but rather obscurely, I've relinked - hopefully better. Thanks for asking. Vsmith (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Redundant "Thermography" paragraph

The first, long paragraph of the Thermography section duplicates a paragraph in Thermography, and it has nothing to do with this article. I linked the main article and cut the paragraph. The material still remaining in this section is still about 90% off topic.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Transparent ceramics. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209140742/http://www.nvl.army.mil/about/index.php to http://www.nvl.army.mil/about/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060301165436/http://www.mda.mil/ to http://www.mda.mil/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Pointless pictures in article

The article has a section titled "missiles" with picture of a US airplane wielding an AIM-9 sidewinder missile, with a caption of "Place of origin: United States." However the only reference to missiles in the entire article is the that missiles use infrared optics, which are transmissible through transparent ceramics. I believe this image should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.111.230 (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

weasel words, cut the crap please: in section: lasers, subsection: Nd:YAG

this section seems way over bloated.

Storytelling like "Finally, the components were returned to Livermore for coating and testing" and "One Japanese/East Indian consortium has focused" are imho not at all encyclopedical.

Weasel word descriptions like "exceptional optical quality and properties" and "studies suggest overall improvement in absorption and emission" and "revealed an excellent optical quality with low pore volume and narrow grain boundary width" should not remain in the article.

The whole subsection seems to be summarizeable in one or two (still rather general, but at least shortened) statements like "Fluorescence and Raman measurements reveal that the Nd3+ doped YAG nanomaterial is comparable in quality to its single-crystal counterpart in both its radiative and non-radiative properties".

Please, if you are involved in editing this article, consider the above and delete 90% of the useless chatter in this subsection. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC).

More redundant information

This article should be made clearer and more succinct by deleting information that does not belong here, as it already exists in other wiki pages (or should).

One example being....

The first working laser was made by Theodore H. Maiman in 1960 at Hughes Research Laboratories in Malibu, who had the edge on other research teams led by Charles H. Townes at Columbia University, Arthur Schawlow at Bell Labs, and Gould at TRG (Technical Research Group). Maiman used a solid-state light-pumped synthetic ruby to produce red laser light at a wavelength of 694 nanometers (nm). Synthethic ruby lasers are still in use.[17} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.181.62 (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)