Talk:Cathodic arc deposition

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

External link opinions

Opinions would be appreciated on whether this link: Arc evaporation process - A simple Flash animation showing the arc evaporation process would be an appropriate addition to the article. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 21:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No: Although the information appears solid, but (1) authorship is unknown (2) any references to reputable/verifiable sources of the provided information are absent. Therefore this website fails Wikipedia:verifiability criteria. `'Míkka 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe:Wouldn't one not-completely-verifiable reference be better than none? The page has some good (basic) information on the process. And frankly, the wiki page that is linked to just states that some references are better than others and technically, while this isn't a "good" source, it's still at least ok (at elast that's my take on it).SmoJoe (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge from Arc-PVD

The articles are about the same process and should be merged. Iepeulas (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger done Iepeulas (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather Typical Soviet Posturing Here

I know it can be difficult for certain Russian men to acknowledge this sort of thing, but cathodic arc depositon was being developed in other places besides Soviet Russia (infact, it was an inevitable mishap with experiments in magnetic sector mass separation). An example is the precedent patent, US 3625848, Snaper, which broadly covers the effect, after which the later Sable patents listed here only receive relatively narrow claims (easily circumvented by said effect of cathodic arc deposition). As much as I respect the work done there, and the many great Russian scholars, this article is a good deal of posturing.Wikibearwithme (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lol I came to point out that at best doing no analysis myself or questioning the record, the correct and accurate statement in the article would be "The first documented viable commercial process was developed in the soviet union". Since this technology represents a "Trivial" concept and was probably sketched on napkins by about 10,000 engineers by the 1960s. The only claim that MIGHT be true is that the soviets were the first to focus on and succeed at optimizing this particular approach to the point that it became viable commerciall (while, of course, every other hypothetical approach to deposition was simultaneously being pursued by dozens of different research and commercial organizations, often many in parallel within each country). That is the nature of many industrially significant technologies.67.165.123.62 (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]