User talk:Logger9/Transparent metals

The article needs much work:

Ushaped. Lead is not a summary of the article (see WP:LEAD)

Extended content

It is now. logger9 (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the current lead is an introduction rather than summary, thus see WP:LEAD. Materialscientist (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only because you are obsessed with repeatedly removing the summary portion ! logger9 (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any summary there. So use diffs. Materialscientist (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason behind this topic is unexplained - take a metal mesh, it will conduct and transmit (very roughly 50%). So why bother with nanowires? Scattering is not an argument here as electrodes lie right on top of the active element.

50% would hardly be considered optically transparent by anyone. logger9 (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, something of the order 90% and above is expected, but the article is not describing it. Materialscientist (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really ?? logger9 (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The transmittance of the nanopatterned metal electrodes is relatively flat in the visible region. The average transmittance in the visible range is 84%, 83%, and 78% for the Au, Cu, and Ag electrode, respectively.

Anything on 90% and above? So why "Oh, really"? Materialscientist (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did you establish the standard for the industry. Have you contacted them about your new standard ?

I didn't, you did by recalling that ITO transmits about 90%. With all its disadvantanges, ITO is well developed technologically. Materialscientist (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am certain they will be fascinated to hear the news about the establishment of your new standard (not). logger9 (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads as a review of a few recent primary sources. It is unclear why those were selected. Let us pick an example from the article: 67% transmittance with 61 Ohm sq resistivity - this is by no means impressive.

More recent developments are between 80 and 90 % transmission @ 550 nm. The articles were clearly chosen as they represent the cutting edge of this emerging technology, and (as stated in the introductory paragraphs) offer one of the first clear explanations of optical transparency in pure metal films. logger9 (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging? You can't be serious on that. This topic was studied for centuries, both experimentally and theoretically? (golden leaves on churches and Maxwell theory. There are hundreds of serious articles, all through the 1900s, documenting optical constants of metals. Materialscientist (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep changing the subject ? There have been no examples of transparent metals. logger9 (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any metal is transparent when thin, people knew that for centuries. Read about it and summarize it - this should be the backbone of the article. Materialscientist (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Chosen"? See WP:PRIMARY. Materialscientist (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-encyclopedic tone - reads as teachers notes. Materialscientist (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This editor repeats the same criticism of all my work. It gets old -- especially since they continue to stand the test of time. I.E. If you don't like the writing, don't whine about it -- do something constructive about it. logger9 (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The argument "here I scrambled some piece of writing, fix it for me" won't work, and you are not a newcomer to know that well. Use a sandbox. Materialscientist (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument, not mine. If you wish to add some type of discussion about the Maxwell relations, then you should feel free to do so. But stop calling for your mommy. It has little or nothing to do with the explnation in these accepted publications. And I didn't scramble anything. You need to stay on track with your subject matter, which seems fairly hopeless. logger9 (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the article focuses on technology of growth and patterning, which is Ok, but silently implies that metal stays an opaque metal, i.e. the explanation is missing on what makes metal films transparent (critical thickness, choice of metal, plasmonic absorption). Materialscientist (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remain focused on what I have read in the clearly referenced literature. As for the rest of this (and the Maxwell relations ? ) you were planning on adding some or all of this material when ???? Very curious, logger9 (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PRIMARY. It is pretty uncommon to describe basic electromagnetism (transparency of metals) from recent research publications. Books are to be used instead. I've got my own writing to do, if you are so keen to know .. Materialscientist (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from my talk[edit]

Please see the freshly re-written version on my Userpage. You have my most sincere apologies for not intially rewriting the articles which consituted the primary sources for the new article. Too many details at once. I will count on you to re-post the new article ASAP, bearing in mind that I am always available for rewrites ! Thanks again, MS. logger9 (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, MS....After a major Internet search last night, I have made a HARD run at the background section and early work -- dating all the way back into the late 1800's (i.e. you were right !). Please check it out when you can (like ASAP). Also, if you are interested in your own PDF copy of reference 4 (review article by Haacke) just say the word. Until then, onward and upward ! logger9 (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs much thought and work, and thus I won't rush. Come to think about this, for example

It doesn't discuss metals and their transparency (plasmon resonances, Drude model, extinction depth, etc), thus the title should be chosen to fit the content, perhaps "transparent electrodes".

It does now. (Please see added sections on 'surface plasmons' and 'extraordinary optical transmission'). PLEASE do not disturb the title of the article. Thank you. logger9 (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try to understand why I kept removing "The article also includes one of the first clear explanations of the phenomenon of optical transparency ..". (i) It reads "This article is original research [administrators, delete it as such]"

Now I understand...which is why the article now reads as follows:

The article concludes with a brief discussion of some of the most significant factors which must be considered within the framework of any theory presented in order to accurately describe the phenomenon of optical transparency in metallic films consisting of dispersed nanowires.

(ii) The article does not discuss any mechanism of transparency at all, i.e. why metals are opaque (and why and when not) and what makes ITO and metal nanowires different from bulk metals in terms of transparency mechanisms - is it just thickness (trivial, and not technological - thin electrodes are unstable), difference in the plasmon dispersion, "antenna effects" or etc.Materialscientist (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does now. logger9 (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post more later. A brief note - when borrowing from other articles, as you did with the section on surface plasmons, you need to check the material. Many parts of it do not fit to this article, and some are incorrect. For example, (i) all metals (and not only metals) support SPR, (ii) as a recall, SPR is just a specific, plasmon mode; it is crucial for some specific surface interactions and unusual angles of incidence, but for a normal incidence of light on a metal film, bulk plasmon still dominates the optical properties. There is a subtlety of the lower frequency of the surface plasmon compared to the bulk, and it might be important, but this depends on the metal and its dimensions. Materialscientist (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can't put my words in the article, because I am no reliable source :-D. Also what I said above is a generalization - one needs to define the situation in terms of wavelength and material+geometry of the illuminated object. Materialscientist (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right.....then if you want it edited, you will need to take care of that yourself. I have already added what you had stated, and done some paraphrasing for brevity. logger9 (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to WP:PRIMARY topic. Let us take number of citations in the Web of Science as some indicator of notability within the scientific community:

Ref. 42 - published half-year ago, and only 1 reference to it

Ref. 43 - published in 2008 - 30 refs - better, but not exceptional at all for this nanophotonics field. Surely, such references may be used to support certain claims, but not to make an article out of them, as it is now. Materialscientist (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a gross exaggeration. But I also agree that the article would benefit greatly from additional examples of quality work, and I am already working on that. Along those lines, do you have any leads for moi ??? logger9 (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Second, metal films are opaque [19]." - depends on thickness, as easy to see experimentally by evaporating a metal layer on a glass slide. One of the common commercial neutral density filters is just a metal film sandwiched by silica slides. The set I used was going from some 60% transmittance down to 0.01%. Materialscientist (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK....then how about this:

All metal films are opaque above some critical value for the thickness.

There is no critical value - transparency changes gradually with the thickness. Materialscientist (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.... and at some critical value of the thickness, there is no light transmitted. That is why it was stated in the Annual Reviews that all metal films are opaque. logger9 (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transmittance changes exponentially with the thickness, there is no clear threshold. "Opaque" is an ill-defined term, like "hard", etc. It is easier to set a goal for required transmittance and figure out what thickness of a metal does it correspond. Metal constants are tabulated. Here is one on-line database, but there are more. Materialscientist (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about this quote from Section 6:

It would appear to be a basic fact that most solid metallic elements which have been manipulated physically in such a way as to limit one or more of their spatial dimensions to a minimum value (i.e. by maximizing the ratio of surface to bulk) will allow a considerable portion of the quantity of visible light in which it is illuminated to pass through. I.E. the light will be transmitted with no serious degree of attenuation or loss of intensity.

Moreover, "opaque" is somewhat of an ill-defined term within this context. Much like the term "hard", it requires quantification in order to become useful in the scientific arena. Optical transmission is a continuous function of film thickness, and actually changes exponentially with thickness. Thus there is no clear threshold or critical value beyond which the film is opaque. It is more convenient to set a goal for required transmission, and then determine experimentally what film thickness satisfies the required value. Thus, metal constants are tabulated, with a number of on-line database.

The purpose of this section is to review some of the most widely accepted ideas and theories on just what it is that determines the optical constants of any given metal.

With 2 review articles included, and ~ 70 references total, please RE-POST or ADVISE. Thanks. logger9 (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't write an encyclopedia article based on wikipedia talks and quote such talks in it. This is not a correct approach to writing.

That is utterly ridiculous. The only wikipedia talk is the section on surface plasmons -- which you insisted on including and have openly refused to help me rewrite (if necessary). If it needs work, then work it. Don't whine.....DO SOMETHING.

Further, the article contains basic logical and factual problems and unencyclopedic statements. Please understand that they are too many and too obvious.

That is an easy way out of pointing them out to me one by one (if, indeed, they actually existed !). Until you are willing to do that, this whole exercise is turning into a big waste of my time.

Let us pick up some random example .. Ok .. the lead "These ultrathin films consist of "nanowires" of such a fine diameter that they do not interfere to any significant degree with the transmission of visible lightwaves".

That statement is simple and true. The diamater of the wire is smaller than the wavelength of the incoming lightwave. Optics 101. Anything else ???

Ok, lets keep this an as example. Individual straight metallic wire will absorb and scatter virtually any light which is not polarized normal to its axis (it will scatter light even when polarized normal to its axis), that is what we usually have in reality. To reality, wires are bent; they are not single, but an ensemble. En ensemble will interact with light even if one wire did not. Let us stop here

Further. The last para of the lead is an example of how not to write a lead of a wikipedia article (please read WP:LEAD and some random examples from WP:FA). Materialscientist (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the lead, then rewrite it. But don't sit there and accuse me of filling this article with crap. It only serves to degrade this entire process -- especially you as a resonsible WP editor and admninistrator. For all the work we have done together this week, and this is all you can come up with ???

You can have it. logger9 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this so hard to understand that I have volunteered to help wikipedia, I did not volunteer to improve your writing. Materialscientist (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed it is.

If you refuse to publish a valuable WP article that I have spent weeks on (and we have worked closely together on over the last few days), and yet you refuse to help me fix a few simple problems with the writing, then you are refusing to do your job. Rewriting a lead might take you less than half an hour. Compare that to the work I have put in here in the last week. It is not only hard to understand. It is impossible. (In fact, in the time it has taken us to complete this last posting you could have been halfway completed with the task at hand.)

I would ask you kindly that you do your job here. I have already completed the bulk of mine. logger9 (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]