User talk:Chjoaygame

Welcome!

Hello, Chjoaygame, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Chjoaygame/archive 1

User talk:Chjoaygame/archive 2

User talk:Chjoaygame/archive 3

User talk:Chjoaygame/archive 4

______________________________

the Editor of Superior Knowledge

At 18:41 on 2 June 2023, the Editor of Superior Knowledge demonstrated his superior knowledge by correcting

"Another kind of heat transfer is by radiation."

into

"Another kind of energy transfer is by radiation, performing work on the system."

This was done in the article Work (thermodynamics), not the article Heat. The edit was here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Work_%28thermodynamics%29&diff=1158226314&oldid=1158070006

There are two problems with this edit, the second of them characteristic of the Editor of Superior Knowledge. First, so far as I know, all reliable sources consider radiation to be a form of heat transfer, not of work. I find the edit to verge on the preposterous, but I didn't try to correct it because I have found it dangerous to try to correct the Editor of Superior Knowledge. Second, the edit left intact the source of the previous statement, Prevost, who thought in terms of radiation as heat transfer; he called radiation "free heat". This is characteristic of the editor of superior knowledge, not to bother to check references, but just to copy them, apparently unread. Yet the Editor of Superior Knowledge seems generally accepted as authoritative in these pages. Challenging him is often met savagely.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unresolved anaphora

Hi Editor @Nishidani ! I have marked the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbabaram_people with a query. You wrote "according to them". I am not quite sure whether "them" is the writers Windschuttle and Gittin, or whether it is the activists. I don't have an easy way to find out. I would be glad to learn which you meant.

Do you, perchance, have a reference for the proposition that Windschuttle and Gittins made that claim (In 2002, it was revived when Keith Windschuttle and Tom Gittin accused modern scholars in Australia of having suppressed the evidence)?Chjoaygame (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too complex for the lead

While I do not disagree with the sense of your recent edit to the Friction page, I think the words used are far too complex for a lead, which should be at the level for a novice. I've worked in nanotribology for ~15 years, but would myself need to look up the exact words. Please rephrase in words a high-school student, for instance, will understand. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I will think about it.Chjoaygame (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about that?Chjoaygame (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of isentropic process

Your input would be greatly appreciated at Talk:Isentropic process#Definition of isentropic fundamentally wrong. Dolphin (t) 05:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind invitation. I will try to think about it. It needs some searching for reliable sources. At present, there are some monstrous errors in this area, but I avoid trying to correct them because such an action seems only to make matters worse !! Chjoaygame (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First law of thermodynamics

@Dolphin51: Dear Dolphin51. Thank you for your attention to the article. There is a logical problem with the article on heat.

The current Wikpedia definition of heat is a reversal of decades of wikiconsensus. The current definition assumes temperature as defined before heat is defined. The more orthodox thermodynamic view is that thermodynamic temperature is defined in terms of the second law and entropy, after the first law definition of heat has been established without reference to temperature. The former wikiconsensus was that heat transfer is defined as the residual after thermodynamic work and matter transfer, for the first law. It is true and important that heat transfer is by "molecular" modes, but, from the point of view of thermodynamics, that is explanatory rather than fundamental, because thermodynamics is a macroscopic topic. It is also true that the current SI definition of temperature is not the same as the thermodynamic definition.

The present Wikipedia definition of heat is in terms of the eighteenth century caloric theory, and ignores that heat is generated by friction, such as in Thompson's cannon boring experiment and Joule's paddlewheel experiment, as well as being transferred by conduction and radiation. It isn't too easy to gather a massive majority of reliable sources on this point: only the better sources do it properly. I want to avoid rocking the boat on the topic, but I also don't want to just forget it.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I see you have a problem with the science embedded in the article on First law of thermodynamics.

I don't have a problem with the science, but I do have a problem with some of the language used. Some of it looks like a PhD thesis or technical writing for a peer-reviewed journal. It appears inappropriate for an encyclopaedia with a very broad audience. It is a technical article so is expected to conform to the principles in WP:Make technical articles understandable. An example of this is the following sentence which I amended but you restored. It is found in Original statements: the "thermodynamic approach":

The primitive notion of heat was taken as empirically established, especially through calorimetry regarded as a subject in its own right, logically prior to thermodynamics.

If this sentence simply said "The primitive notion of heat was taken as empirically established prior to thermodynamics" I would understand it, and I would say it was well written. However, the sentence has an additional twelve words. Do these twelve words add a proportionate amount of information, meaning or value to the sentence? I must say no.

Consider the clause "especially through calorimetry regarded as a subject in its own right". What is a non-expert reader to make of this clause? I think a non-expert reader would go elsewhere at this point. It reminds me of early attempts at technical writing by PhD candidates who are still labouring under the misconception that the best sentences are long, convoluted and complex.

If the clause "especially ... in its own right" is genuinely relevant and important at this point in the paragraph, and if it reflects an idea found in reliable published sources, it can best be presented in its own sentence rather than clumsily inserted into an otherwise legitimate sentence about the early empirical origins of the concept of heat. Best wishes! Dolphin (t) 13:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I didn't exactly restore the former version. I put in the word 'logically', because, as you noted, there was a gap in intelligibilty. But I agree that the wording is clumsy, and that the information perhaps needs two sentences. I agree that shorter sentences are better. I will have another try.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal energy

Greetings Chjoaygame. In your recent edit at Thermal energy you inserted text saying that internal energy is The energy contained within a body of matter or radiation, specified by its entropy, volume and chemical constitution ...

Your explanation/definition implies that for a reader to comprehend the concept of internal energy, that reader must first understand the concepts of entropy and chemical composition!

As you know, internal energy assists us to work with the first law of thermodynamics, and entropy assists us to work with the second law. Your recent edit implies that to understand the first law, readers must have a prior understanding of the second law! Clearly not.

Please revisit your edit and make some necessary adjustments. The guidance at WP:Make technical articles understandable is highly relevant in this situation. Thanks. Dolphin (t) 23:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dolphin51. You are right, you make a good point. My definition of internal energy does indeed use the concept of entropy. Not a smart move for the context. I will revisit.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the specifying parameters. I was moved to make the edit by the previous version's talk of "total" energy. Total energy includes the potential energy with respect to an external field and the kinetic energy of the system moving as a whole. Even Wikipedia editors who feel that they know a lot can forget the point.

The statement of the first law is a bit tricky. It is mainly about the distinction between heat and thermodynamic work, and was originally for a closed system without transfer of matter. For the present day, I agree with Münster that it needs a connection with transfer of matter, which he writes as ${\displaystyle U_{0}=U_{1}+U_{2}}$ for the amalgamation of two isolated systems into one isolated system.

Please let me know if my revision needs further revision.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chjoaygame. I think your most recent edit has eliminated that particular problem.

In WP:Make technical articles understandable#Lead section it is emphasised that the lead section should be readily understood by as broad an audience as possible. With this in mind, I suggest that the text The energy contained within a body of matter or radiation, excluding the potential energy of the whole system with respect to an external force field, and excluding the kinetic energy of the system moving as a whole could be simplified by using a blue link to potential energy and omitting the expression “with respect to an external force field.” Similarly, a blue link could be used for kinetic energy.

By using this approach, the lead section is accessible to the very large audience of readers for whom potential energy simply means gravitational potential energy. For example, science students at the secondary school and High School level are introduced to potential energy, but it is gravitational PE. This large audience can be expected to immediately understand the potential energy of the whole system, but the extra words “with respect to an external force field” reduce the understandability for this audience rather than increase it. Considering we are referring to the lead section, I suggest these 7 extra words should be omitted. Dolphin (t) 23:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, Dolphin51, for your thoughtful and helpful care and patience. Your advice accepted. Please let me know if my revision needs further revision.Chjoaygame (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chjoaygame. The current version of the lead looks fine to me. Your revisions have met the objective! Dolphin (t) 08:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]