Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive May 2015

A draft article for your consideration

Please help to review Draft:Mutual energy theorem. If you do not wish to do an AFC review you are welcome to post an opinion on the draft's Talk page instead. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Please, this draft is in limbo until someone with the neccessary subject knowlege tells us it's good or junk. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting 'round to this earlier. There are a number of "mutual energy theorems" in physics and engineering, but I could find no such theorem for electromagnetism. So I don't think the topic is notable. Looking at the article, it is based primarily on the first reference--the unpublished Arxiv paper. While this paper may be eventually/already published, it is a primary source and so the article is technically original research. In other words, it looks like and academic chose to publish their preprint on WP. Unless secondary sources are found for this particular EM mutual energy theorem, this article stands little chance of surviving AfD. --Mark viking (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I have  Declined the Draft on that basis. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal - A Fusion Research Task Force

I would like to form a task force covering fusion research

I propose we form a task force covering fusion research. I plan to ask some people to join this, including Art Carlson, FT2 and Tokamac. I think that fusion research is poorly covered on Wikipedia. This is a problem, because lots of people depend on Wikipedia for fusion information. Here are some examples of poorly written, badly cited or just no information articles on Wikipedia:

• Neutral beam injection This technique is used across many tokamak devices, it is described in several other articles (which are not cross-linked). The article addressing the topic directly has no citations (at present), is poorly written and has no diagrams.

• Madison Symmetric Torus this article has 22K bytes (a relatively long article) and also contains ONE citation. Additionally, I cannot get up close details on the machine itself. It would be helped with a diagram of the containment vessel (with dimensions), a bulleted list of the relevant diagnostics, a diagram of the field and a simplification of the jargon. This also needs to be better connected to the article on reverse field pinches.

• The Ohmically Heated Toroidal Experiment where is it? Why is there no information about this and many other machines on here?

A good format to follow

I spent a couple of days re-working the LDX article. This is an example of what I call a decent fusion article. (albeit it needs more details on modes of operations). From working on this article I have devised a format for these fusion articles. Here it is:

• Introduction
• The history: when, where who built this thing, why was it shut down
• The Specs: how big, how powerful, the magnets
• Diagnostics: What tools were used to measure the plasma temperature? Density? Fields, ect.. (cross-link these to detailed descriptions of the tools themselves).
• The Geometry: where is the B-Field, E-Field, ion motion, ect...? (PICTURES)
• Single Particle Motion: if I put an ion or an electron in there, what happens? Where does the Lorentz force, compression wave, ect... send it?
• Bulk Motion What do the MHD codes say about bulk behaviors of plasma?
• Modes of operation: Many fusion devices have modes of operation (focus fusion, pinches, tokamaks, fusors) almost all these machines seem to. What are these modes? When do they happen? Why do they happen? What is the dominate behavior when they do?

Topics needing clarification

A couple of other misconceptions and topics that need to be clarified. This is just a few issues off the top of my head:

1. Lawson Criterion verses the triple product. IDK how Lawson’s original work got perverted into the triple product. If you re-read Lawson’s original work he is talking about the energy balance across fusion devices. Building a fusion reactor means beating the energy balance, not reaching a cut-off triple product. At the very least, the two issues should be separated.
2. What about the bad/junk ideas? This is another big area where more is needed. Explain to people why: the Migma machine, cold fusion/LENR, sonofusion/bubble fusion, ect.. were bad ideas and bad science proposals.
3. Plasma instabilities: There are many of them, they are not well explained or shown in pictures. They are not cross linked to the fusion devices where they apply. The diachatron and weibel instabilities are two I want to see flushed out, in relevant geometries.
4. Radiation losses: I also do not understand how radiation losses got splintered into a slew of subcategories (brehemstrulung, cyclotron, syncholotron, ect..) It is plasma giving off energy as light when it changes speed. The topic could be far simpler and we need to link it to predictive equations of what comes off plasmas based on its’ temperature, density, ect..
5. A list of beta numbers: I want a list of all the beta numbers experimentally achieved in MCF. I think we need to get this as a way to compare many different tokamaks, stellorators, ect… These are often listed as normalized beta numbers, we can convert that information into a yard stick we can use to compare devices and approachs
6. Funding: how much was spent? Who spent it? What was it spent on? The budgets for fusion has been in the tens of billions of dollars (in the US)

Plasma behaviors are also not proper explained or linked to relevant articles and devices:

• Self-organization: plasmas self-organize. It’s really cool. This is exploited in many devices (field reverse configurations, tokamaks, focus machines, polywells, ect..) We need to bring this out as a “theme” in many articles, and cross-link the concept.
• Diamagnetism: Plasmas can reject the outside B-field. This topic needs to be better explained on Wikipedia. It also needs to be connected to all the approaches where it is relevant.
• Magnetized plasmas: the difference between magnetized an non-magnetized plasma needs to be explained.
• It’s all about the fields: It is all about the electric and magnetic fields. I see this time and time again in fusion literature. I am also reading about some field configuration, which causes particle X or particle stream Y to behave some way. I like PICTURES when this happens.
• Panchen Arching: Plasma under enough voltage will arch. It is a problem for many fusion devices. We need to explain how cascading in plasmas or gases happen and we need to include links to it across many fusion articles.
• Thermionic emission: When you heat up metal, or nail it with neutrons, ions pop out of the metal. The effect needs to be explained as simple as I just explained it, and it needs to be cross linked.

Articles to fix

Here is a shortlist of articles I would like to see fixed on Wikipedia:

Magnetic Confinement Fusion (MCF):

Tokamaks

• ITER
• EAST
• JET
• KSTAR
• T-15
• T-4
• TFTF
• JT-60, JT-60SA
• HT-7
• TCABR
• Alacator C-Mod
• STOR-M
• H-1NF
• ASDEX
• T-3
• T-4
• FTU
• Tora Supra
• OHTE
• (there are something like 215 Tokamaks planned, built or decommissioned world-wide)

Spherical Tokamaks

• MAST

Stellarator

• Lyman J. Spitzers' original machine
• German X-7
• NSTX (Princeton)

Levitated Dipole Experiment (LDX)

• The LDX
• RT-1
• D20 Dipole

Magnetic mirrors

• TMX and TMX-U
• Baseball

Cusped Geometries

• KEMPS machine
• Picket fence

Reversed field pinch

• Madison Symmetric Torus

Quasi-Stable Structures:

• Field-reversed configuration
• 40+ machines - where were they built, who built them, what did they find.

Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF):

Direct drive ICF

• Omega
• HYPER
• Cyclops
• JANIUS
• Long Path
• Table top
• NOVA
• NOVA upgrade
• Argus
• NIKE

Fast ignition ICF

Indirect ICF

Heavy Ion Beams ICF

Pinches:

Z-Pinch

• Z Machine
• ZETA
• Ect…

Theta-Pinch

Dense Plasma Focus

Inertial Electrostatic Confinement (IEC):

Fusors

• Wisconsin's machine
• MIT’s work on multi-welled devices
• Commercial devices
• Amature devices

POPS

Penning Traps

Beams

• Fusion reaction cross studies with beams of ions

Hybrids:

Magnetized target fusion (Field Reverse Configuration and ICF)

• General fusion
• LINUS

Magnetized Liner Inertial Fusion (Theta Pinch and ICF)

• Sandia’s Z-Machine

Magneto-inertial fusion (Short Lived Magnetic Fields and ICF)

Polywell (Cusped Geometries and IEC)

Dynomak

Screw Pinch (Theta Pinch and Z Pinch)

Bad/Junk/Fruitless Approaches:

• Uncontrolled Fusion
• Migma Machines
• The Hemual Project
• Bubble fusion/Sonofusion
• Cold fusion/LENR
• Muon-catalyzed fusion
• Pyroelectric fusion
• Ball Lighting
• Cross Fire Fusion

I hope we can all work together to fix this vast lack of information. I think if we ever are to get fusion power, we will need to solve this issue first. I have even seen congressional staffers turn to Wikipedia as a source for background information. When it comes to fusion, we need to all improve our knowledge on the topic. WikiHelper2134 (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Nuclear fusion may be an active area of research but a narrowed task force may not gain enough experienced and knowledgeable editors. If you want a task force why not have one for nuclear physics in general? Then that would be catch-all, including nuclear fission and fascinating real astronomy examples like stellar nucleosynthesis. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 14:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Meh, I am going to do this anyways. I do not care if it takes 3 months or 3 years. I intend to continue trying to build a team to tackle this issue on Wikipedia. We will Never get fusion power, if nobody understands fusion research. Wikipedia is the place to do it. WikiHelper2134 (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a research institute. We do not have the resources necessary to do the experiments and calculations necessary to understand how fusion can be controlled (if it can be controlled at all). All we can do is reports what secondary sources are saying about it. If they do not cover it or fail to understand it, then we are helpless. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It is fine. I understand your concerns. I will continue to provide more citations, clarity and better figures, on this topic, as I have for many years. If others want to help with this, let me know. WikiHelper2134 (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Autler–Townes effect and AC Stark effect

Dear physics experts. A draft about the AC Stark effect was declined at AfC as a the same topic as Autler–Townes effect and then deleted after no one showed any interest in it for over a year. To preserve the content I merged it into the Autler-Townes article and changed the original page to a redirect. I note, though, that there is some disagreement about whether these are the same or only related concepts. I am not a physicist, so if there is consensus among those who are more knowledgeable that each should have its own article, I will have no objection if the content is removed again from the Autler–Townes effect and the redirection removed from AC Stark effect. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The Stark effect is a well-studied problem. Not familiar with either of these but the AC Stark effect seems to be the more general concept, while the Autler–Townes effect may be an example. Not sure if they should be merged in the same article or in their own separate articles. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 17:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

BFKL question

Hi. In AfC, there's an article on the BFKL equation, which I think may be notable, but am unsure. The article needs to be re-written, as it is unclear whether it is about the authors or the equation, and make it more about the equation. The author has asked a question on my talk page. I could sure use some help on this. Thanks. Onel5969 (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Never heard of it and no expert, but it could be notable. Since the article seems to be about some evolution equation in quantum chrmodynamics, the title needs to be moved from "BFKL" to "BFKL equation", and the equation actually presented, and as you say yes it needs to be rewritten as it glorifies how "famous" it became from an inadequately described prediction. Seems to be a very, very specialized result in scattering theory (could be wrong), so I don't know if it should be kept. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 16:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

This is an equation used on calculating scattering in QCD in the high energy limit. Here is a CERN Courier article that describes its significance. Yes, the article is pretty bad, mostly about establishing credit for B, F, K, and L. The article should be about the equation and its historical and phenomenological importance in QCD. The four physicists, as a group, are not notable as a group beyond the equation. The equation is discussed briefly at Light front quantization#Overview. --Mark viking (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Heavy ion physics?

Non essential, and long time no see. If this has been pointed out before then apologies.

This seems to be a topic in itself and there are even specific journals dedicated to it (just a browse on google). Are there any main articles this red-link could point to? Or should it be an entirely new WP article (which I'm not inclined to write for now)? Thanks for any feedback. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 16:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back! We have High energy nuclear physics which discusses some aspects of heavy ion physics, but as noted on that talk page and by you, Heavy ion physics is notable on its own. Until the article is written, a redirect to High energy nuclear physics may be the best option. --Mark viking (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind reply and helpful advice, as always. ^_^ For now let's just redirect to High energy nuclear physics as you suggest, better than nothing. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 08:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Equipartition theorem for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Jarodalien (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Error in High Potential equation on the Poisson-Boltzmann equation page

In the "High Potential Case", the first equation clearly needs to have some changes made, since its right-hand side equals 1 identically. The second equation may need some too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewman (talk • contribs) 13:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Troublesome editor at Binding energy

An IP editor is being troublesome at Binding energy and at Synergy, trying to directly equate the two. Would anyone like to opine at Talk:Binding_energy#Synergy? —Quondum 16:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Also at Minimum total potential energy principle. The editor seems to be POV-pushing. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Binding energy should probably be rolled back to the January 7 version once the page is semi-protected and/or the IP's is/are banned. YohanN7 (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted here and here and warned ip on talk page. Source does not mention synergy. This is wp:original research of the purest kind. - DVdm (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The IP has now made 4 reverts in a matter of hours: diff, making it a clear three revert rule violation. —Quondum 17:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but they were not formally warned about edit warring. Now they are. The next revert will result in a report at wp:AN3. - DVdm (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Reported now. - DVdm (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked now. - DVdm (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Size

Surprisingly, Wikipedia has no article on the basic concept of "size" (Size is a disambiguation page primarily listing various kinds of size). I have therefore gotten a good way into a draft article on the concept itself, at Draft:Size. The concept seems relevant to this project, so I am making a note here in case anyone has any suggestions for the draft. bd2412 T 04:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I see a lot of references on the internet to the subject; maybe that could be helpful. For a start in your research google "Get Bigger NOW!" GangofOne (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Very clever. In any case, I have moved the article to mainspace, and it is now at Size. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm impressed that anyone can take such an ill-defined subject such as "size" and write a pretty well-defined article about it. Nice job. YohanN7 (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - although there is much potential for improvement. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Excellent addition to the encyclopaedia! Often the simplest things are the ones we most ignore. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

Draft:Pulsed field magnet --> this is a draft for your consideration. Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Also Draft:Carrier-envelope phase. Thanks again, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Carrier-envelope phase is a very nice article - clear and correct. --Steve (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Emdrive article

The emdrive article is primarily based on non peer-reviewed, primary source research, mainly: [1] which is a conference paper. Conference papers are not generally peer-reviewed. The WP:RELIABLE standard is peer-reviewed secondary source research. There's also been some second hand reporting on some NASA websites; these also are not reliable sources for this kind of thing.

The editor User:Quantanew is putting material claiming that the research shows that flights to the outer planets are seriously on the cards, but has no reliable sources to back it up and is revert warring it into the article.

Most serious physicists think that emdrive is highly likely to be experimental error at this point, 750mN of thrust was shown, but not in a vacuum, while low power testing in a vacuum has shown only tiny thrust, which is highly likely to be experimental error, at least until we get reliably sourced, peer reviewed experimental data.

Much as I genuinely like possible new physics, we need to bring Wikipedia's strictest sourcing requirements to this article, it's just getting out of hand.GliderMaven (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please I welcome any substantial discussion about this issue on the talk page the user User:GliderMaven is trying to suppress this without a discussion and a third opinion. And to answer to this user the latest result show thrust in a vacuum, according to Paul March a Nasa JSC Eagleworks engineer team member on the experiment.

The current sources on the whole article are not peer-reviewed sources. It was put on delete and the consensus was not to delete the article, obviously other editors considers this article important. This article is already in the category of fringe physics and hypothetical technology and with that in mind I just enumerate the potential applications of the technology, all of this cited by the current team a NASA JSC Eagleworks working on the device.Quantanew (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Quantanew, as a point of interest, the article was nominated for deletion nine years ago, and thus is almost entirely irrelevant to the current discussion. I do agree with GliderMaven, the sources you have used are either unreliable (forums and conference papers), or the text taken from NASA itself is from the fringe researchers who have been (largely) discredited. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Are we using the same rule for the whole article? all the sources are conferences papers, news links and the original papers of the different teams working in this type of device. In fairness we will have to measure the entire article as equalQuantanew (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this article is low quality; and your edits made it even worse.GliderMaven (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

In your opinion to clarify and I will strongly disagree with that. The article is worse now thanks to your reversions. And you still are unable to judge the article as whole based on your own logic.Quantanew (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The emdrive, if it were shown to really work, would be revolutionary not just to spaceflight but also to the fundamentals of physics. As such, claims that it works are extraordinary claims, and they require extraordinary evidence. If it does work, of course, Shawyer will deservedly get a Nobel Prize, and I look forward to my flying car and taking vacations on Mars, while watching a new golden age of physics unfold as theoretical physics gets rewritten from the ground up. Fortunately, experimental science is on the job. In a few years, we will know if it works, one way or the other. Until then, we need to be deliberately conservative in our treatment of it, otherwise it's easily possible to let enthusiasm run away with us: remember cold fusion and the faster-than-light neutrino anomaly? -- The Anome (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Quote from NASA Watch: "With regard to the Eagle Works EmDrive "warp core" research underway at JSC, NASA HQ PAO has told NASAWatch: "While conceptual research into novel propulsion methods by a team at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston has created headlines, this is a small effort that has not yet shown any tangible results.[2]. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Continuing to research this, at relatively low cost, makes sense: the causes of this sort of "that's peculiar" anomalous observation are well worth tracking down, even if it just results in the discovery of the mechanism of experimental error. (And what's not to like about even the most tenuous possibility of discovering a reactionless drive!) But making extravagant claims at this point is not warranted. -- The Anome (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

AfD (potential hoax?)

There is currently a discussion regarding an article that may be of interest to members of this project. Concerns have been raised that the article may be a hoax. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manahel Thabet. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

MoS: atomic units

The article Atomic units does not indicate that there are specific symbols (other than, optionally, using the usual notation for natural constants). The article section Elementary charge § As a unit indicates that there was once a unit called the "electron", equal to the elementary charge, and that there is a relic of this in the electronvolt, including a relic of the unit symbol e in the unit symbol eV; it also indicates that the elementary charge quantity is often denoted e. I note that many of the articles on elementary particles use e as a unit symbol (nonitalic, though I was changing these until I realized this dichotomy). My question is two-fold:

• Is the symbol e as a measurement unit symbol used explicitly and recognized by particle physicists?
• Should the MoS allow the use of e as a unit symbol (as opposed to a quantity) in the MoS, and presumably then further unit symbols? (This affects whether it is italic or roman.)

My own guess is "no" on both counts. —Quondum 02:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

When I write "the helium nucleus has a charge of +2e", I do not know whether I am using e as a "measurement unit symbol" or as a "natural constant", or both, because they amount to the same thing anyway. So your first question is not answerable IMO. As for whether e is roman or italicized, I think I see italics more frequently, but I haven't explicitly checked. :-D --Steve (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing this out in WP:MOSPHYS, still static after two years... Someday it should be launched into mainspace. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 20:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've added my take on it to WP:MOSPHYS. I now feel more emboldened to italicize further es. —Quondum 05:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding the physics of the horn

How, exactly, does a horn (the musical instrument) work? More precisely, why is it that air blown into the narrow end of a long, gradually conical metal tube comes out the other end with a sharp and highly amplified sound? Does the fact that the tube is wound in circles or other shapes, as with the Natural horn and French horn, affect the outcome? Cheers! bd2412 T 04:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The shortest and slightly simplified answer is that the horn (or any brass instrument) is acting as a closed tube with air going through it; the notes the instrument can produce are due to the resonant frequencies of the particular fingering being played (the different fingerings, of course, creating a tube of differing lengths for different harmonics).

$f={nv \over 2L}$

where L is the length of the tube, n is the harmonic, and v is the speed of sound. Hope that helps. Primefac (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A horn is conical, and behaves like an open cylindrical pipe, not a closed one. Burninthruthesky (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point. My mistake. Primefac (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

As a brief follow-up, brass instruments are usually divided between horns (like the French horn and mellophone) which are primarily conical over their length (i.e. the bore of the tube expands over the length of the tube) and others (like the trombone and the trumpet) which are primarily cylindrical over their length. Is there a reason who one configuration would have an effect different from the other? bd2412 T 14:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

May I just offer you a link? Please, have fun. Purgy (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. bd2412 T 14:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

what can Wiki Education Foundation do to help WikiProject Physics?

Hi WikiProject Physics,

The Wiki Education Foundation wants to know what it can do to empower editors who work on science-related content on Wikipedia.

If you're familiar with Wiki Ed, it's likely by way of our classroom program, which grew out of the Wikipedia Education Program and through which we provide support for instructors and students who work on Wikipedia as part of a class assignment. This post is about something different, though. We'll be continuing to develop that program, of course, but we also want to start working on ways to help the existing Wikipedia community directly.

In 2016, Wiki Ed will be running a campaign tentatively titled, "Wikipedia Year of Science". The goal, generally stated, will be to improve the content and coverage of science-related content on Wikipedia ("science" interpreted loosely). I'm trying to figure out what sorts of things we can do to accomplish that goal through the existing community rather than by bringing in new users. The question is indeed wide open, but think about it this way: we have staff and a lot of institutional connections; how can we use our resources and relationships to support you? For example, is there a special collection of photos we should try to get on Commons? What about a document archive? Databases or specific physics-related journals? Organizationally, is there software that could be built that would help people working on these topics? What kinds of research could we conduct or help to organize that would help you to work more effectively? What are ways we can connect you with other human resources -- experts, for example (though this is not intended to be an outreach program)? How could we motivate people to contribute, whether it be adding content, improving content, conducting reviews, adding images, improving sourcing, or any other part of the process? How can we get more physics articles to FA/GA? How could we help you to spend more of your time working on things you find fun and interesting and less time on process, organization, and functionary duties?

These questions are really just intended to get the ball rolling as this really is a nascent idea. So all ideas are welcome: big, small, obvious, obscure, ambitious, simple, technical, organizational.... I want to be clear that this is not just some survey -- the feedback I get will help to give shape to the "Year of Science" campaign.

I should also mention that this community engagement program we're starting isn't limited to the Year of Science campaign. Researching and planning is high on my priority list right now, but we can also talk about shorter- or longer-term projects you may have in mind, too.

Apologies for the long message and thanks for your time. Looking forward to hearing what you think. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC) (volunteer account: User:Rhododendrites)

X-ray computed tomography listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for X-ray computed tomography to be moved to CT scan. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

List of most massive black holes listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of most massive black holes to be moved to List of black holes by mass. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

What do you make of Draft:Resistivity "Real Section" and Draft:Lieb–Oxford inequality? Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Whatever 'Real Section', I never heard of it and I can't find much sources on it that explains what exactly it is they mean by it. There's something to be said about 'IP method' (and we have an article on it Induced polarization), but unless solid sources can be found (and those in the articles don't seem to address this topic directly), I don't see why this needs its own article (assuming it's a legit concept). If there's a project on mines/georessources/oil, they might know more about the notability of this' RealSection' method, but as it's stand, I would decline the article and tell the editor to improve Induced polarization instead.

Concerning the L-O inequality, it seems to be a real thing, with many papers from many authors in journals such as Physics Review A. I would approve that one, although it could use a bit of wikignome love concerning presentation. But that's regular editing stuff. I would however, suggest that the editor clarifies what they mean by 'the indirect part of Coulomb energy' and give a bit more context. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

"The indirect part of Coulomb energy" is actually defined in the article, just not at the beginning. I added a little introduction section. --Steve (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)