User talk:Eric Kvaalen

For older stuff, see [1], [2], [3], and (most recently) [4]

MfD nomination of User:Eric Kvaalen/timeline of the future

User:Eric Kvaalen/timeline of the future, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Eric Kvaalen/timeline of the future and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Eric Kvaalen/timeline of the future during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. LuckyLouie (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at a MFD

Eric Kvaalen, in regards to this discussion:

I have collapsed a section that was going off-topic, if you have additional constructive comments to add to that discussion please continue in a civil manner.   Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 17:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Miracle of the Sun

Hi Eric! I've rescued (with some small editing) your valuable contribution to this article in 2013, which somebody deleted later on. However, some conceited user who doesn't respect other people's beliefs is censoring this paragraph. Maybe you'd like to give a hand there? Regards. --Savig (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Magnetizer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Magnetizer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnetizer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Logarithmic derivative

Hi, Eric! I have noticed your contribution to apparent molar property and mathematics articles. In this regard I ask your thoughts on a rather mathematical aspect about the implications of logarithmic derivative appearing in the differential formula of excess molar quantity?

What mathematical conclusions can be inferred in regard to the dependence on pressure of both the excess volume and the activity coefficient. The excess volume being non-zero for real mixtures requires that the activity coefficient must have at least a linear dependence on pressure.--86.125.182.207 (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. By the way, the article Excess molar quantity is a bit of a mess. It was better back in 2011. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

How do you find , by the way, the present state of the article Excess molar quantity compared to its state of two months ago?--86.125.166.20 (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's a bit better. Some stuff that had been removed has been restored. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
In this context I want to ask you about specific proposals/suggestions for improvement of content of this article you may think of. Thanks--86.125.166.20 (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't really see the point of the sentence about the "logarithmic derivative". I would insert the word "and" in the third sentence: "The most frequently used excess molar quantities are the excess molar volume, excess molar enthalpies and heat capacities, AND excess chemical potential." And I would say "Taking the derivative with respect to temperature" instead of "Deriving by temperature". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

vline

Hi Eric, your edit to Help:Displaying a formula seems not to produce what you perhaps intended. In MathML it produces an error, and in PNG we get a bottom box containing the string "vline", as does this one:

${\displaystyle \vline }$

In case you don't get that error, it looks like this:

Failed to parse (Conversion error. Server ("http://mathoid.svc.eqiad.wmnet:10042") reported: "Error:["TeX parse error: Undefined control sequence \\vline"]"): \vline

Which math appearance preferences setting do you use? Cheers - DVdm (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi DVdm. I'm using "PNG images". It looked fine on my computer. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Strange. I'm using Firefox 41.0.2 and IE 11 on Win 8.1 64bit here. What's your config? - DVdm (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
(To DVdm) Same Firefox version, and Windows 10 64-bit. Originally I figured out how to write this equation in TeXstudio (in a paper I'm writing), and then I thought I would add it to the Wikipedia help because when I had looked there I hadn't found how to do the vertical line bit. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
This seems to work in PNG now:
${\displaystyle \int _{e}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{t(\ln t)^{2}}}dt={{\frac {-1}{\ln t}}\,\vline \,}_{e}^{\infty }}$
In MathML I get the error.
I have left a report at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 141#Problem with rendering of tex vline - DVdm (talk) 06:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Pseudo-binary mixtures

Hi, Eric! In re to apparent molar properties of a mixture, can a pseudo-binary mixture be defined in order to get some insights in multicomponent mixtures? For instance of a pseudobinary mixture, could a mixture of two electrolytes with solvent/water be represented as such?

So for a multicomponent mixture several pseudobinary can be defined using combinatorics concepts, a ternary has combinations of 3 taken 2, C(3,2) and also apparent molar quantities for pseudobinary mixtures.

The above considerations are meant as premises for how can a deviation from ideal solution addivity when mixing two binary mixtures/solutions be characterized?--86.125.171.52 (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a pseudo-binary mixture. In any case, I don't see much advantage to trying to use apparent molar properties with multicomponent mixtures. It seems to me that it just makes things confusing. I see that the article Apparent molar property has been edited a lot since I last edited it, and I don't like it. I guess I'll have to go and get rid of some stuff.
If you want to discuss the subject more, I suggest you send me an e-mail. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems that that at least one meaning/example of pseudo-binary mixture is given by this article. Another meaning could be related to defining a (fictitious) pseudocomponent in a at least ternary mixture which transforms it in a fictitious/equivalent (pseudo)binary one.--86.125.171.52 (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The purpose intended in this transformation of ternary in an equivalent binary is to have intermediary steps in determining the relation between activity coefficients in ternary mixtures to those in real binaries. This merits a more detailed analysis both on and off-wiki and I'll of course send you a mail.--86.125.171.52 (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
A related issue to the previous is whether a ternary mixture obtained by mixing two binaries mixtures, one with negative deviation from ideality and the other with positive deviation, can be ideal, the negative and the positive deviation compensating each other (at least partially).--86.125.171.52 (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edit to Ecliptic coordinate system

Please put an inline citation in the article to support your edit to Ecliptic coordinate system in accord with WP:V. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: Done. (It's simply the rate of precession. I converted the rate per year to a rate per century in arcminutes.) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
That's a good start, but is not sufficient for a reader to reproduce your results. Would you please add to the citation the page and equation number (or other indication of the place on the page) you used to obtain your result? Jc3s5h (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: Done. (The number is in the text. I have given the exact figure, which one can see in the concluding paragraph.) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Please see the talk page of the article where I explain why the edit was incorrect. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
It was slightly incorrect, for a different reason. See talk page. I have corrected it now. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Since there is no article Shaddai to merge to, you'll need to propose something else if you want to go forward. Mangoe (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I meant Shaddai (god). I've fix'd it now. Thanks. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Be aware that the latter is nominated for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I've brought up unding the move at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AFD_.22solved.22_with_a_move:_need_this_undone_for_discussion. Mangoe (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Nine 11

I altered your recent edit as i saw appropriate as per the sources, specifically your phrase "the Saudis are withholding documents that would shed light on what they did"; however, i am not certain your version is incorrect. If you really meant that, please provide an accessible source. The BBC link was not quite helpful. Duscuss on the article Talk page if necessary.Axxxion (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Redirect of Qafzeh

Why redirect it to Mount Precipice rather than Skhul and Qafzeh hominids. Seems like the latter is more well known and meaningful in the English-speaking world. I've read many articles on the archaeology but had never heard of Mount Precipice. TimidGuy (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@TimidGuy: Well, simply because Qafzeh is a place, not a hominid. It's a precipice near Nazareth, called Mount Precipice in English. The name Qafzeh means a leap or jump, as though it's a place where a person might jump. The famouns cave is somewhere below the top. (I haven't seen the cave.) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Ocean acidification

Hi there. Just to say that I've added a sentence to the lead of ocean acidification re: ocean alkalinity. I've placed it near the top, where I think that it's most relevant, and have tried to make the context clearer than before. I was afraid before that readers might come away with the impression that OA is of little consequence because the ocean is slightly alkaline (i.e. to avoid the perception that it's only a problem if the ocean is actually acidic). Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 08:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

there's no rule against using our intelligence to take something out of an article if we all agree that it's wrong

Hi. Sorry, I missed you saying there's no rule against using our intelligence to take something out of an article if we all agree that it's wrong in all the hurly-burly. As it happens, yes, I agree entirely. WP:RS says that things in articles have to be reliably sourced, but (AFAIK) it and similar policies say nothing about removing "well" sourced things that are false. However, my opinion on this has been forged at least in part in the heat of the climate wars, and may or may not convince anyone else William M. Connolley (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Eric: Thanks for the thanks. I agree with much of what you've said on the Talk: Sea level rise page, in particular with your view that if something wrong in an article needs deletion, then that case can be argued without reference to WP:OR because WP:OR does not apply on the Talk pages or to something not in (or no longer in) an article. However, I think the opposition to your specific point vanished with the extra reference and the deletion of the offending sentence, and I think there is no appetite from those who misapplied the WP:OR policy to continue the debate about the general point. You've won this battle but not the war or the laurel wreath- from my limited experience of WP in the last three years, I'd settle for that. No doubt the general point will come up again elsewhere, ;-)
Gravuritas (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

SQ limit and recombination

Hi. You recently made some edits to the Shockley–Queisser limit article that I think should be re-arranged. Do you mind looking at the talk page? Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I've seen your addition of radiodating to the Uses section once you did it the first time and now as well. I think it doesn't belong there (and I'll explain my point), but I want to get some comments from you to see I'm not missing anything.

The section is not supposed to list all uses (as the list would go on and on and on), only the most important ones. Is it really an important use? I mean, scientific experimentation is not even a use. It doesn't describe lead's usefulness; in itself, this means nothing. I am inclined to delete this info once again (this might belong in some other article that mentions how radioactivity fades away with time and this helps for research, but not here), but I think a do-undo-do-undo cycle won't help us much and a discussion is preferable.--R8R (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs:I don't understand. I did not add anything about radiodating. I added something about using ancient lead, which was originally added by someone else and later deleted. I put it back because it's interesting and because the paragraph was link'd to by another article (CUORE). Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course, I meant that but things got messed up in my head while I was typing this; sorry for your confusion. I assumed you added it the first time as well; I see I was wrong. Anyway, while it's nice and stuff, it is not an actual use and as such it should not be listed among uses. Possibly it could be mentioned along the description of isotopes and lead formation, but it's certainly not a use. Do you mind me move the info elsewhere in the article?--R8R (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I do tend to think of radiodating as a use, but more as a use for Th and U than their final daughter Pb. (After all, the key thing here is the property of Th and U that they are unstable, and that the missing Th and U manifests itself as an excess of their stable daughter Pb.) So isotopes is better in my opinion. Double sharp (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
BTW, regarding the information that was added in the diff, now that I actually looked at it: this is indeed interesting, but I would put it in isotopes. It seems to me that the main thrust here is that 210Pb occurs in large enough quantities (presumably from trace uranium inclusions in Pb minerals) that it is present when Pb is purified out, and even those minuscule amounts are of course unacceptable for an experiment like this that needs immense sensitivity to detect the neutrinoless double beta decay of 130Te. What I would write is probably something like "The radioactive isotope 210Pb can occur in lead minerals due to trace quantities of its parent 238U being present [source], and can contribute a detectable amount of background radiation. Hence, lead dating from Classical times is used when radioactivity is unacceptable, since any 210Pb that was present in such lead would have long since decayed away to its great-granddaughter, stable 206Pb. [source]" Double sharp (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I put the paragraph in question under the section "Applications", and certainly using it in scientific experiments is an application. We already have a mention of 210Pb earlier when talking about the isotopes, but we should mention this way of using ancient lead under Applications. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps I worded myself incorrectly. If this were an application, well, not every application is worth listing in an overview article like the one in question. This presumable application is very minor in terms of tonnage. If people used hundreds of tonnes of ancient lead, this could probably be revisited. However, I just don't think this is an application. The word "application" means that you use something to achieve a goal not directly relying on what is being applied. Scientific research is too wide a phrase to easily agree this is a use: compare with the use in bullets (make bullets, fire arms), aqueducts (make aqueducts, bring water into your city), and so on. You could potentially say something like "is being expermented on to prove/disprove a wider theory," but even if this isthe case (is it?), this is a very minor use and not every use is worth mentioning because of the small quantities of lead put in use here; otherwise, the list would just go on amf on and on and violate the idea of an overview article. In this case, however, chances are, it is important for physics/chemistry and if this can be shown, it could be featured in an appropriate section.--R8R (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I think you're makin too much of a deal about this. It is an application, and it's interesting. I think it should stay where I put it (and with its section label so the CUORE link will work). Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Man, it's not fair :( I typed a full-blown rationale why it is not desired to be this way and I hear in response short "don't make a thing of it, let's just leave it my way." I will move/remove this info unless you respond to my criticism because I find it not belonging where it is now---and I developed this point. I wanted to do it from the start. (By the way, links are easy to change.)--R8R (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Put it to a vote on the Talk Page of the Lead article. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)