Talk:Radiometer

Crookes radiometer[edit]

This article says nothing that isn't covered in Crookes radiometer. It should either be deleted or changed to be a more general description of a radiometer. Pdefer 02:50, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

No one seems to mind, so I'll redirect. — Pdefer | !! 19:36, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

Second paragraph is, IMO, poorly worded and not as clear as it could and should be. I recommend that someone kindly rephrase for clarity. 76.6.68.100 (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VfD debate[edit]

For the vfd debate related to this discussion see Talk:Radiometer/delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Page resurrection[edit]

The redirection results in several links to the word radiometer incorrectly pointing to the Crookes radiometer which is just one (obsolete) type of radiometer and clearly not the correct link for the word radiometer. I have therefore resurrected a broad definition of a radiometer and provided a link to the Crookes radiometer.

The article could usefully be expanded with more examples of radiometers.

Op. Deo 12:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

photo detectors[edit]

There is a great deal more to say about radiometers! International Light made scientific instruments, and they have now merged with Gilway, in Massachusetts US. Specialized units called "belt monitors" are sold for monitoring UV curing facilities. This page has a number of detailed radiometer detector spectral curves, from 200-2000 nm:[1] It would be great to have details about photo detectors of various types in WP.-69.87.203.9 11:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sympathetic Vibrational Physics[edit]

This page contains a reference to SVP, a free energy theory, via John Keely. Should this really be contained within a scientific article, especially as the reference is a youtube video - hardly peer reviewed! I suggest that this reference is deleted and a proper explanation for the operation of radiometers is included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.158.26 (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References deleted. I don't use radiometers, so cannot rewrite the article (which is badly needed, alas). HairyWombat (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crookes radiometer (again)[edit]

I appreciate that this article has been resurrected once, but honestly, when you take out the large section on Crookes radiometer there is almost nothing left. I hesitate to suggest the article be deleted (again), but something needs to be done with it. As a first step, unless people object I will remove the stuff which is duplicated in the article Crookes radiometer. HairyWombat (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Crookes radiometer content should be deleted here, merged into Crookes radiometer where appropriate, and there should be a conspicuous link to that article from here. The remaining content in this article is in poor shape, and unintelligible in places, e.g.: "Radiometers detect and measure radiation as thermal (convert absorbed energy to a signal) and photodiode (photons absorbed at a constant response/quantum)." CosineKitty (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Crookes radiometer is still mentioned in the text. While I was there, I also removed the references to John Worrell Keely's Sacred Science. This is a physics article, after all. HairyWombat (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like your changes, HairyWombat, and I did some more work removing unintelligible text and rewording what was left. There isn't much left in this article, but it has higher quality, and it could be expanded back with better writing and reliable sources. CosineKitty (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality[edit]

This article is of quite poor quality. I hope I will find time to improve it. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 22:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A significant problem is the number of single-sentence paragraphs. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the topic to know how to expand (or merge) some of these solo sentences.Agent 86 (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article tells how it doesn't work, but not how it does work. (There's a reference, but why not say here how it works?) Mcswell (talk) 04:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]