User talk:Evgeny

Stark spectroscopy

Hi Evgeny, I just saw that I removed your freshly added disambig to Stark spectroscopy. It may be that you were still working on the page, but as it is now, it is surely not a disambig page. I don't really know much about this (I was running a cleanup run on a list of strange stubs), so feel free to edit the article to your liking (will keep an eye on it, I might learn something). Sorry 'bout this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Bremsstrahlung

May I ask what is "BS" about Griffith's treatment of bremsstrahlung? I'm pretty sure the difference between Griffiths' and Diver's angular power distributions is that Diver's is valid in the rest frame of the moving particle, whereas Griffiths gives the radiation that an observer would see when watching a particle move with speed v subject to acceleration a. The latter is arguably more useful, and is certainly not "BS" !! I would suggest reverting the edit, except the relativistic generalization is useful. I think some combination of the two versions of this section would be best. Rotiro (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC) I wish I had my texts with me, but I don't. Consider consulting Landau & Lifshitz; that's a fairly authoritative source. Rotiro (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

See the continuing discussion here . Rotiro (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Update on fermi energy vs fermi level

I looked it up my undergrad textbook (Ashcroft and Mermin), and they too distinguish Fermi level from Fermi energy. So as far as I can tell, "Fermi level" is completely unambiguous, and "Fermi energy" is the only one where there are different definitions. (Do you agree?) I'm going to change my edit at electronic band structure accordingly...no need to bring up "fermi energy" at all. Thanks again for helping me learn about this! :-) --Steve (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's even worse than I thought...see my section Fermi level#Terminology for example...the two opposite definitions of chemical and electrochemical potentials is especially unfortunate. :-) --Steve (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a lot of confusion and ambiguity in the solid-state literature. But, of course, we can avoid all this in Wikipedia by deciding on something and sticking to it. My preference is "Fermi energy" (at T=0) and "chemical potential". The problem with "Fermi level" is that one still uses for it the same symbol $E_{F}$ as for the Fermi energy... --Evgeny (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Grace (plotting tool)

I have nominated Grace (plotting tool), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace (plotting tool). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Papa November (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree but am not going to burn time fighting for it.--Evgeny (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No need, there are now some sources included in the article which demonstrate its notability. It's being kept :) Papa November (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Atomic_units

Hi. some years ago you moved E_h, hartree energy from fundamental units to derived units. I agree that at that time the table was redundant (not all listed could be fundamental), but for some reason you choosed to remove Hartree Energy instead of the "Coulomb force constant". Do you remember why was that? The article doesn't cite any reference for this choice, on the contrary, BIPM at http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/4-1.html says that

" ... Similarly, in the a.u. system, any four of the five quantities charge, mass, action, length, and energy are taken as base quantities. The corresponding base units are the elementary charge e, electron mass me, action , Bohr radius (or bohr) a0, and Hartree energy (or hartree) Eh, respectively. In this system, time is again a derived quantity and the a.u. of time a derived unit, equal to the combination of units /Eh. Note that a0 = alpha/(4piRinfinity), where alpha is the fine-structure constant and Rinfinity is the Rydberg constant; and Eh = e2/(4piepsilon0a0) = 2Rhc0 = alpha2mec02, where epsilon0 is the electric constant and has an exact value in the SI. ..."

that is, energy (Hartree) is a base unit of the system. However for some reason, the article insists that the "electric constant" is a base unit, why is this? isn't it better to agree with BIPM?

--Alfredo 04:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredo.correa (talk • contribs)

Hi. Mathematically, there is indeed a freedom of choosing the base units. From the physical point of view, it makes more sense to base on the physical constants as much as possible. Please note that in the article, I used "fundamental units" instead of "base units". So while one can express the electric constant using the hartree energy etc, this is rather awkward (the electric constant is precisely defined in SI). Evgeny (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Johan_Holtsmark-photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Johan_Holtsmark-photo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Johan Holtsmark-photo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Johan Holtsmark-photo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Classical-map hypernetted-chain method, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plasma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit War

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Weizmann Institute of Science. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizmann (talk • contribs) 17:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Please state incorrect statement

Can you state an incorrect statement regarding the WIS? You just delete it. Calling it fake though the claims are real.--Wizmann (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

E.g., "During 2014 to 2019 the institution rank in Shanghai Ranking fell outside top 100 universities". What I see in the ranking web page instead, it fluctuates within a few percent around 100 (about 105 in 2014, 93 in 2020). Where is the "decline"?? Evgeny (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Or, for example, "In 2020, the insitute plunged to the 507th place in Leiden Ranking". I supposed you referred to the ranking according to the *absolute* number of top-quality publications. But this is nonsense, comparing WIS to huge universities like Harvard with orders of magnitude more faculty. Choose "Order by: PP(top 10%)" and you'll see WIS comes at number 21. Not bad. What's your agenda? Evgeny (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I see that you are correct in the sense, the Weizmann has never been in the 9th place in this ranking or even the top 100. What is written in 2018 is completely incorrect, as the ranking does not include any ratio adaption. Clicking on buttons and sorting the university, according to an arbitrary sorting, which gives misleading sense of global influence ( I don't know according to this sort, none of the ivy league is influential) is just a lie. What is written there is completely incorrect, WIS has never been influential according this ranking. Would you delete this line? People might actually believe this. According to the CWTS Leiden Ranking the WIS is 5th in Israel, and 507 any other claim , is just a fallacy. For some reason you deliberately removed its record in 2014 to 2019? The institute may have entered barely to top 100 in 2020, but according to the whole trends is temporally, and wider image should be presented. Or at least not be omitted for some very clear reason, I mean, we both know that you work there and you have a great interest hiding the decline of this place. --Wizmann (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

"What is written in 2018 is completely incorrect, as the ranking does not include any ratio adaption." - Let's not switch the topic. If you see a wrong statement (and you're definitely sure it is), correct it. Which is exactly what I did re: your changes. Specifically, "For some reason you deliberately removed its record in 2014 to 2019?": do you refer to "During 2014 to 2019 the institution rank in Shanghai Ranking fell outside top 100 universities"? Because, as I showed you, it's plain wrong. Not sure if we look at the same image, but what I see are numbers like (give or take, the numbers in the table are not exact for > 100) for these years: 110-105-120-120-120-110. And 96 for 2020 (which surprisingly, *you* decided to omit). So I ask you again: where do you see the claimed "decline"? Do you call a decline change from 92 or 93 (2012, 2013) to ~110? Then you should call a dramatic rise 110->96; why didn't you? But frankly, all this is on the level of statistical fluctuations, not worth the time to discuss. "we both know that you work there" − right, but I've no idea who *you* are. Do you mind introducing yourself? I wonder what is it in your life about WIS that your *only* contributions to Wikipedia is to throw fake negative info about the institute. Evgeny (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok so we are in the same page regrading removing the lie that WIS is in 9th place in the world in this rank?

During 2014 to 2019 WIS was not at the top 100 universities, as you mentioned all the places are outside 100, I never made claims regarding 2020 in the "decline" paragraph, though I have to say, it doesn't change the big picture. in 2014-2019 even Shanghai put it out of top 100, and we both know it will put it out in 2021. In the paragraph I looked at a general picture, as mentioned above, though shanghai was kind with WIS, most of the rankings put it outside top 200. You may mention that for one year it briefly ranked 96, but it doesn't change the fact, that generally, it is place-less in shanghai. So summary, the decline was in qs, shanghai and other rankings, which put WIS outside of top 500. I knew that the employees of WIS will take it personally and haunt me, as of course their career depends on it. I wish not WIS's revenge. None the less, I hope you can take this incident in a mature way, admit that the paragraph was completely fine, stop editing WIS as you aren't neutral, and move on with that. This kind of behavior hurts further the institute's reputation.--Wizmann (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. --Wizmann (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Evgeny. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Weizmann Institute of Science, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. It does appear that you have more than a fleeting connection with the organization and the area of your editing is a possible concern. It would be best if you propose these changes to talk page instead. Graywalls (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Graywalls. I've never made any substantial contributions to the article in question. I just deleted obviously wrong (and I believe personally biased) false statements made by Mr/Ms Wizmann (sic!). I've clearly explained why these claims were wrong (please read the paragraphs above). The only moderately relevant statement (about a certain decline in ranking of *some* of the departments) was duly left. Evgeny (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the material (which is in my primary field of interest, researchers and universities), it would be appropriate to make a declaration of COI. From what I gather, it isn't paid COI, by our definition,. You need not and probably should not say who you are, but you should give the relationship, if it exists. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Faraday effect

Hi Evgeny, I noticed that you removed a figure that I added to the Faraday effect page. This figure adds important clarifications for an astrophysical scenario that are not present in the other figure. These include noting the explicit locations of source and observer and including the direction as it would appear in the sky when propagating from an astrophysical source. This is ambiguous in the other figure.

Hi Astrogirlwest, can you please specify what exactly this figure clarifies? I suppose you did good work in the original publication, but the image *itself* does not add new information for the reader, IMO. Unless you intended to add also some relevant text and I caught you in the middle of editing. If so, I am sorry. Evgeny (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Evgeny, the new figure includes the labels "source" and "observer" to make clear the direction of the wave propagation. There is an arrow in the other figure that can perhaps be inferred as propagation direction, but it is not explicit and could be confused with the axis orientation. The other figure is also drawn such that the wave is propagating into the page, which isn't as intuitive when thinking about astrophysics problems (as we typically observe the light propagating towards us, the observers). The new figure labels phi and the direction for which this angle is measured (i.e. the direction of the Faraday rotation). The new figure includes the labels "North" and "East", which makes clear the direction Faraday rotation as it would be measured on the sky, and how it relates to the Stokes parameters, Q and U, which are the astrophysical observables. I was also reviewing the text of the entry under the Interstellar Medium and I had intended to edit that text to make the variables consistent with the figure, and more consistent with the conventions typically used in astrophysics.Astrogirlwest (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Astrogirlwest, do I understand correctly that the crux of your dissatisfaction with the current figure is that the direction of the observation (and hence, the sign of the effect) is ambiguous? Maybe it can be clarified with a short text in the caption. Re: the Stokes parameters, they are not specific to astrophysics, of course. Do you believe they are important to be discussed in this article? In any case, the definitions (like the rotation angle) cannot vary within the article, from one section to another. Either it is beta or psi, but not both, etc. BTW, I noticed you have a very nice related video on youtube. Do you mind uploading it to Wikimedia and using it in the article? Evgeny (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Bohr model: saying I used wrong notation

When I copied the Rydberg formula to the Bohr model, I used the correct notation. The “principal quantum number” was unknown in the 1880s when Rydberg created his formula based on wavenumber. If you read the article on Rydberg’s formula, it says: “He plotted the wavenumbers (n) of successive lines in each series against consecutive integers which represented the order of the lines in that particular series.” I don’t mind you deleting the formula from the Bohr model article. It is cleaner. But saying I gave the formula the wrong notation is incorrect. The “principal quantum number” concept was not invented until the 1920s. See Helge Kragh, Bohr’s Second Atomic Theory. Rydberg certainly never heard of it.Voyajer (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course, Rydberg never heard of it. But neither he heard about the "Rydberg formula" (and "Rydberg constant") in its modern definition. By replacing the dimensionless quantum numbers with wavenumbers (dimension of 1/length) the RHS and LHS of the equation became having different dimensions. Evgeny (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution. Distribution of Energy: My Suggested Change

Hi Evgeny, Today, you have reverted my change and answered to my talk of the wikipage in :

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%93Boltzmann_distribution#Distribution_for_the_energy

See in the related section 36, discussion Part B.

I still am sure, that my changes are valid and correct.

However the parameter fraction ${\frac {\epsilon }{kT}}$ makes sense after ARGUMENT B.1 and B.2 .

In agree, the fraction $kT$ is optional as it can be seen as a constant. But when using chi-squared distribution it will be s necessary.

Can we discuss further?

• The citation [14] shows exactly the suggested change.
• f(..) must be it is a PDF (Probability Density Function)

I can provide you screen-copies if you do not have access to

[14] Laurendeau, Normand M. (2005). Statistical thermodynamics: fundamentals and applications. Cambridge University Press. p. 434. ISBN 0-521-84635-8., Appendix N, page 434

P.S.: Is it possible to label that equation ? likewise (9b) ? - Frank, alias Willyfoobar Willyfoobar (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Frank, to clarify: your equation wasn't incorrect, but it was just a trivial rewrite of Eq. (9). On the other hand, the original unnumbered equation that you replaced has a different meaning. It can be derived straightforwardly from the equation that follows "The Maxwellian distribution function for particles moving in only one direction" text. Evgeny (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Evgeny, I agree that your revert was OK.

Perhaps you can help me. I am looking for a formula the energy distribution of a diatomic gas with n=5 degrees of freedom . That implies n=5 degrees of freedom, what is inconsistent with the given formula. Following the equilibrium theorem it must differ from the ideal gas (n=3) I am not sure if I can use the the formula for $F_{\epsilon }(\epsilon )$ and apply the degree of freedom to the distribution. The target of the calculus (of the diatomic CDF) is to calculate of the molecules an diatomic ideal gas having energies higher than a Treshold energy. Should be $1-CDF()$ Can you help me with this calculus or give me advise where to find a solution? I TRIED did two calulus which are probably wrong in: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Willyfoobar/sandbox feel free to edit in my sandbox! - Frank Willyfoobar (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to explore the Degrees of freedom (physics and chemistry) and Equipartition theorem articles. There are also all kinds of fora (like stackexchange.com etc) for asking questions. Evgeny (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi,

I just wanted to thank you for correcting my edit on the Thermoelectric cooling page ref the hot/cold side. I mistakenly called this a temperature gradient. Starlights99 (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome :) Evgeny (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Comparison of PDF presentation software for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of PDF presentation software 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/Comparison of PDF presentation software until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Plasma edits

It's not often that I make inadvertent errors in an edit, and I'm a bit embarrassed whenever I do. Thanks for catching my "one of one of" blunder and for having a second kick at the cat. Although I disagree that my edit substantively changed the meaning of the sentence, the root of our disagreement seems to hinge on the meaning of "and/or." Regardless, I've edited your subsequent edit to address the "and/or" ambiguity. See what you think of it and please post to the Plasma talk page if you have questions about my rationale for the wording change.

A heads up: I'm about to make a few more edits involving the use of "it" in a way that currently points to an ambiguous referent. The ensuing edits should evince a bit more clarity and concision. Cheers. Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

No, "and/or" was not the main issue, not at all. Your variant sounded to me as if saying that plasma is any of the four states of matter as long as the matter contains enough charged particles - which is a very confusing statement.

My consequent edit specified that it is not just one of the four (which is correct, but less specific), but the fourth one. Which is chronologically correct, as for thousands of years people knew about solid, liquid, and gas. Plasma is less than a century "old".

BTW, IMHO "and/or" is a shorter way to express the intention than "in any combination of" :). Evgeny (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Plasma Magnet - Remove essentially duplicate entry

Hi,

Regarding

diffhist

  Plasma magnet‎ 08:39  −72‎   ‎Evgeny talk contribs‎ (Remove an essentially duplicate entry) Tag: Undo thank

The entry you removed is specific to Plasma Magnet, which is more relevant. The link you left is to the very long generic magnetic sail article. I am reverting your edit and deleting the first entry. Please let me know if you disagree.

Thanks Dmcdysan (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Fine with me. Evgeny (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Fundamental plasma parameters

Hello. Thanks for your corrections to the Fundamental section I recently added to the Plasma parameters article. I have a few comments/questions on some of the changes.

1. You specify "steady state"; however, from my experience these fundamental parameters and the parameters derived from them are also used to characterize plasmas that are not in a steady state. For example, it is useful to know how these parameters change as a system evolves in simulations. Maybe I am misunderstanding the use of steady state here.
2. You added the particle species's mass and charge as fundamental parameters. I understand the logic, but would these quantities not by considered physical constants? I think this is why the source I specify does not give them as fundamental.
3. Regarding the sentence on other fundamental parameters for partially ionized plasma that you removed, although it does not provide information necessary for the rest of the article, I still think it may be an important qualification that readers might want to know. (Maybe applicable parameters will be added to the article in the future?)

I am curious as to what you think about this. And thanks again for your edits. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for your comments.

1. Yes, of course these parameters are also used for non-steady-state analysis. But then you need a lot more - the whole atomic physics of processes like electron impact excitation, ionization, recombination, etc, etc. So it's the issue of sufficient vs. required. The article says "other plasma parameters can be derived", which implies that one talks about "sufficient", and this in turns means we must restrict the consideration to a steady-state case. Or at least when it's a good approximation (i.e., the typical time scale of the system dynamics is large enough).
2. Hmm, not. Of course, they are based on physical constants (or rather can be derived from them), but for all the expressions in this formulary it is of no importance. Say, m_e is there only because electrons are one of the plasma species. In the case of ions, there isn't even that - ions can be very complex (including organic chemistry). But even for atomic ions, the ion mass and charge are still parameters from the plasma physics point of view. In fact, what is encoded in the set of these parameters is "plasma composition". One could be given the information in a way like "this is a fully ionized helium plasma" (meaning \mu = 4 and Z = 2) before the formulae can be put to use.
3. Right, I removed it because nothing in the current version made any use of it. I believe the encyclopedia articles should include only relevant information; otherwise readers get confused. If/when the relevant derived quantities appear - sure, these should be reconsidered. On the other hand, I doubt this article should talk about very advanced topics like plasma dynamics.

Evgeny (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Nuclear fusion ‎

Sorry, you completely misunderstood the purpose of my edit. Your question: "how is Li related to D-T?" only confirms my conclusion. If you scroll down that article , you will see: "the designers of the Castle Bravo "Shrimp" had understood the usefulness of 6Li in tritium production" and the corresponding nuclear reactions in that section, that answer your question. "Sustainable" in my writing means "capable of meeting humankind's energy demand for centuries" not "auto-ignition", that you are thinking of. Because there is a serious public misconception about where tritium comes from (it comes from lithium), I insist, that you restore my edit. You/I can add more to clarify the ambiguity, that you fell a victim of. Walter Tau (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You're trying to impose your own (or at least, irrelevant to the context) definition of "sustainability". The article - as is clearly stated in the first paragraph - is about physical reactions. It isn't about commercial energy production. It isn't about "humankind's energy demand for centuries" either. Let's not introduce irrelevant language. Are you confusing this article with Fusion power? There, the issue of lithium is discussed. Evgeny (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out Fusion power article. Yes, the topic I am tyring to raise is covered there. However, it feels appropriate to mention briefly the drawbacks of nuclear fusion for energy production in Nuclear fusion article as well. Walter Tau (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, I believe it isn't appropriate here. Nuclear fusion is a physical phenomenon. It has been taking place in the Universe billions of years before mankind and will be continuing taking place after the mankind successfully destroys itself (whether the "sustainability" is reached or not...) for billions of years to come.

BTW, for the same reason, the entire "Artificial fusion" and most of the "Confinement in thermonuclear fusion" sections are irrelevant as well (they're largely repeating the corresponding contents in Fusion power) and so, IMO, should be removed from here. I guess it's the presence of these sections that made you feel a clarification is needed. Evgeny (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Ball lightning

Thank you for removing (on 15 September 2024) the longstanding (29 February 2020) erroneous statement that the existence of ball lightning remains unproven. I am intrigued, because on the previous day, 14 September, I published an essay on my own website on which I bemoaned the reluctance of the scientific establishment to accept the existence of phenomena that they can't explain. I wrote: 'For hundreds of years, ball lightning was ridiculed as pseudoscience, and even today the Wikipedia article on ball lightning reports, absurdly, that "owing to the lack of reproducible data, the existence of ball lightning as a distinct physical phenomenon remains unproven."' 24 hours later you correct the matter! Did you by any chance see my essay, or was the timing merely a remarkable coincidence? Prim Ethics (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

No, I was just responding to a comment of another user. So it is a coincidence (which you, however, may call by a different name along the lines of your essay :)). Evgeny (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I love it! Thank you. Prim Ethics (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)