Content deleted Content added
Tomásdearg92 (talk | contribs) →Conversions to nm: done |
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{SpectroscopyProject}}. Tag: |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
{{WikiProject Spectroscopy|importance=mid}}
}}
== Assessment ==
This article suffers from insufficient context, and the table is not referenced (though references for IR correlations are widely available). Also, the format of the chart has an appearance that I find annoying. Otherwise, it's fine. [[User:Shalom|Shalom]] ([[User talk:Shalom|Hello]] • [[Special:Contributions/Shalom|Peace]]) 01:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Line 36 ⟶ 37:
::'''Support''' removing nm from the table. Conversion factors can be noted in the article body. --[[User:Kkmurray|Kkmurray]] ([[User talk:Kkmurray|talk]]) 21:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
:::{{done}} But not the conversion, yet. [[User:Tomásdearg92|Tomásdearg92]] ([[User talk:Tomásdearg92|talk]]) 00:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
::'''Support''' removing nm and keeping them removed. It is actually mathematically incorrect to convert features (peaks and troughs) of a distribution curve this way (whether a probability distribution or spectrum), and can introduce errors as high as single digit percents for common IR spectra, and as high as 76% for very broad spectra like the solar spectrum (case in point: the peak of the solar spectrum in wavelength is Green-Visible while in frequency it's Infrared). Converting one's entire curve to the axis used by the literature (wavelength vs wavenumber/frequency/photon-energy) ''then'' calculating the peaks will give the correct values that can be compared to the literature, while taking peaks and converting them alone will give slightly- to very- incorrect values. (Though it's less of an issue the narrower the peak/trough, which explains why you can get away with it in atomic gas emission lines). --[[User:RProgrammer|RProgrammer]] ([[User talk:RProgrammer|talk]]) 22:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
== Clarification ==
Line 41 ⟶ 44:
The fact that my suggested changes were incorrect and reverted, highlights the need for clarification regarding the intended bond and containing structure to remove ambiguity. Furthermore, it is not obvious whether the vibrations are stretching, or deformational. [[User:Plasmic Physics|Plasmic Physics]] ([[User talk:Plasmic Physics|talk]]) 23:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
:You aren't necessarily incorrect, I just want to get a naming consensus per [[WP:BRD]]. Specifically, I found the proposed symbols somewhat obscure and prefer methylene to methanediyl, etc. But, to avoid [[WP:OR]], the table headings should follow current secondary sources. What do the current textbooks use to describe group frequencies? That should be the starting point. --[[User:Kkmurray|Kkmurray]] ([[User talk:Kkmurray|talk]]) 02:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
== Phosphorus oxide ==
Clarification about the meaning of "free" and "bonded" phosphorus oxide would be nice, especially since searching both google and wikipedia for the phrases only yields a [https://books.google.com/books?id=rVPODwAAQBAJ&pg=PT121&lpg=PT121&dq=%22bonded+phosphorus+oxide%22&source=bl&ots=OI-q3JLZEM&sig=ACfU3U12gsma5AKsxeHi8jzyiJfFhSv2Tw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjQ2I2XgIDrAhWXW80KHZHZAqQQ6AEwAHoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22bonded%20phosphorus%20oxide%22&f=false single result] that's hardly more helpful than this table. --[[User:RProgrammer|RProgrammer]] ([[User talk:RProgrammer|talk]]) 22:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
| |||