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

______________________________

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/?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

Hi Editor @Nishidani ! I have marked the article /info/en/?search=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

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

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

@ 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