Talk:Van der Waals equation/Draft: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Kim van der Linde (→References: new section) |
imported>Pieter Kuiper |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
However, there does appear to be an "n" missing in p V = RT in the text just below the isotherm figure | However, there does appear to be an "n" missing in p V = RT in the text just below the isotherm figure | ||
[[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 14:47, 4 October 2007 (CDT) | [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 14:47, 4 October 2007 (CDT) | ||
:I have reinserted the n but it states: approximates meaning that a constant can be omitted as it behaves according to pv=RT. R being a constant derived during the equation derivation can for that evident reason not be omitted. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:grey"> <font color="yellow"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font> </span> | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
Leiden, 1873 is not informative, is there is full reference for it? [[User:Kim van der Linde|Kim van der Linde]] 16:27, 4 October 2007 (CDT) | Leiden, 1873 is not informative, is there is full reference for it? [[User:Kim van der Linde|Kim van der Linde]] 16:27, 4 October 2007 (CDT) | ||
:I will see if I can dig op the article in the Kammerlingh Onnes lab. It will however be of little importance since it is most likely written in Dutch, there will be however references in the (copy) of the original including translations. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:grey"> <font color="yellow"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font> </span> 16:32, 4 October 2007 (CDT) | |||
==APPROVED Version 1.0== | |||
<div class="usermessage plainlinks">Discussion for [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Van_der_Waals_equation&direction=next&oldid=100181276 Version 1.0] stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break. </div> | |||
== Corrections == | |||
This article has no category. | |||
At the beginning, we see some MediaWiki code. Please remove it. | |||
[[User:Olier Raby|Olier Raby]] 05:22, 27 October 2007 (CDT) | |||
*Do you mean this: <font color = "blue"> #ifeq: Van der Waals equation/Draft</font>? It seems to me that this is part of the "subpages" template. Or does it have something to do with this protect/unprotect ping-pong between Sanger and Innis? --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 07:36, 27 October 2007 (CDT) | |||
==Attribution, history== | |||
I thought that the idea of Citizendium was that it would become easier to see the names of who authored and who approved the text. Right now the [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Van_der_Waals_equation&action=history history] does not even credit the main author. /[[User:Pieter Kuiper|Pieter Kuiper]] 07:38, 28 October 2007 (CDT) | |||
:The history is on the draft page, [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Van_der_Waals_equation/Draft&action=history here]. If you think that is problematic, you are not alone. Several ideas have been proposed to deal with the matter, the most recent [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1303.0.html here]. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 04:32, 29 October 2007 (CDT) | |||
:: Yes, I did find the history on the draft page, but if "approval" means that the approvers are the only ones visible, I will not apply for approval of my contributions. | |||
:: I did not find much in the "Back to Citations" discussion thread that you were linking to. Maybe you meant this thread "[http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1320.0.html A way to make crediting authors slightly more palatable]", where you tried to bring this issue up? /[[User:Pieter Kuiper|Pieter Kuiper]] 05:56, 29 October 2007 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:56, 29 October 2007
WP article is for 90% mine.--Paul Wormer 04:24, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
I changed a lot in the CZ version w.r.t the WP version (added a graph and removed a redundant equation), but forgot to switch off the WP flag. I dare now to give it status 1. --Paul Wormer 03:12, 9 September 2007 (CDT)
{{ToApprove}} However, there does appear to be an "n" missing in p V = RT in the text just below the isotherm figure David E. Volk 14:47, 4 October 2007 (CDT)
- I have reinserted the n but it states: approximates meaning that a constant can be omitted as it behaves according to pv=RT. R being a constant derived during the equation derivation can for that evident reason not be omitted. Robert Tito | Talk
References
Leiden, 1873 is not informative, is there is full reference for it? Kim van der Linde 16:27, 4 October 2007 (CDT)
- I will see if I can dig op the article in the Kammerlingh Onnes lab. It will however be of little importance since it is most likely written in Dutch, there will be however references in the (copy) of the original including translations. Robert Tito | Talk 16:32, 4 October 2007 (CDT)
APPROVED Version 1.0
Corrections
This article has no category.
At the beginning, we see some MediaWiki code. Please remove it.
Olier Raby 05:22, 27 October 2007 (CDT)
- Do you mean this: #ifeq: Van der Waals equation/Draft? It seems to me that this is part of the "subpages" template. Or does it have something to do with this protect/unprotect ping-pong between Sanger and Innis? --Paul Wormer 07:36, 27 October 2007 (CDT)
Attribution, history
I thought that the idea of Citizendium was that it would become easier to see the names of who authored and who approved the text. Right now the history does not even credit the main author. /Pieter Kuiper 07:38, 28 October 2007 (CDT)
- The history is on the draft page, here. If you think that is problematic, you are not alone. Several ideas have been proposed to deal with the matter, the most recent here. Stephen Ewen 04:32, 29 October 2007 (CDT)
- Yes, I did find the history on the draft page, but if "approval" means that the approvers are the only ones visible, I will not apply for approval of my contributions.
- I did not find much in the "Back to Citations" discussion thread that you were linking to. Maybe you meant this thread "A way to make crediting authors slightly more palatable", where you tried to bring this issue up? /Pieter Kuiper 05:56, 29 October 2007 (CDT)