Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:EM Spectrum Properties edit.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Image:EM Spectrum Properties.svg, not featured[edit]

Original[edit]

Short description

  •  Info A diagram of the EM spectrum, showing the type, wavelength, frequency and black body emission temperature. Adapted from EM_Spectrum3-new.jpg, which is a NASA image. Created and uploaded by Inductiveload, nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 07:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Alvesgaspar 07:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Lycaon 11:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC) to edit. Lycaon 22:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Jarekt 13:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Thermos 14:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support very nice work -- walké 14:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Very nice indeed. There is just one thing that bothers me: All such diagrams I have seen resp. noticed yet go from lower to higher wavelength (resp. from higher to lower frequency) from left to right. This was irritating at first view. Since this is an SVG it should be easy to edit. No reason to oppose though since I reall like this diagram. --norro 15:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not always so. I can add that all such diagrams I remember seeing has used the same convention of starting at the long wavelengths. Si it seems like there is not a fixed convention regarding this. -- Slaunger 20:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like this a lot. Very clear. --MichaelMaggs 15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC). Now supporting edited version. --MichaelMaggs 07:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I love a good, informative diagram. --JaGa 18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- MJJR 19:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support One comment though. I do not think peak wavelength is the best way of stating the equivalent black-body temperature as it could give the impression that it is the maximum wavelength emitted in the black-body wvae-length spectrum (which it is not). I have not found the perfect formulation, but I guess characteristic or most probable is more correct somehow. -- Slaunger 20:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC). Support moved to edited version. -- Slaunger 09:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - There is a slight improvement to make: instead of "Wavelenght /m" and "Frequency /Hz", it should read "Wavelenght (m)" and "Frequency (H)z". To Slaunger: none of the formulations is good enough because it is not possible to describe energy distribution(over frequency) with a single number. - Alvesgaspar 08:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ..unless you indicate descriptions of the distribution such as the mean of, the maximum of or the median of. The problem is it gets too technical for the targeted viewers. My suggestion to use "characteristic" is an attempt to use a more everyday word than the descriptive statistics terms. Peak is a pretty bad coice unless it is something like the wavelength of radiation with peak (or maximum) intensity. But it just gets too involved and long. Hmm...tough one. Did you not intend to write "Frequency (Hz)" by the way? I would say that "Frequency [Hz]" is equally good as it is an often used convention to enclose units in brackets. Actually I think the original notation "Frequency/Hz" is good notation too as it explicitly indicates that what you see is a number divided by its physical unit. But we are getting awfully nitty-gritty here I think. -- Slaunger 08:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally quite like "...is the emitted wavelength with peak intensity", but thats still pretty long. "Characteristic" is OK, but I don't particularly like it as it sounds technical but isn't the standard phrase used to describe it. Unless it is and I don't know it, in which case I'm wrong and that's the best option.
    As for the units, if you write frequency (Hz), then it could mean that frequency is a function of Hz, or that it's multiplied. By dividing, you get a dimensionless quantity which is actually what is on the diagram (how do you place a Hertz on a piece of paper?) Maybe I could have Frequency / [Hz], as this emphasises division by units, rather than a variable.Inductiveload 15:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment There's some objections over at the en candidacy. 124.178.183.181 09:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --WarX 09:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Scale, scale, scale!!![reply]
    Can you elaboare on what you mean? If it is the size of the image shown, it can be of any size as it is in the scalable vector graphics format. You can magnify it as much as you want. Or maybe it is something different you are referring to? -- Slaunger 09:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is same distance on scale between 10^15 and 10^16 as 10^16 and 10^18. This should be made as proper logarithmic distance (10^18-10^16 should be twice as 10^16-10^15). --WarX 12:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with that is that the cutoffs for accepted frequency ranges (radio, microwave) etc, are NOT logarithmic. Sure I could make it on a log scale, but then all the diagram would be unevenly spaced. This diagram puts them all together and gives each band approximately equal weight. The scale is not supposed to be linear or logarithmic or anything other than in order of increasing frequency, showing the major divisions and their approximate size of wavelength. Inductiveload 15:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose A ripoff is one thing, but a bad ripoff is another. This purports to be scientific - choosing arbitrary scales, Wavelength is measured in meters, thus wavelength / m = dimensionless = means what? Frequency is cycles/second, which is Hertz, divided by Hertz - doesn't that always equal one? Stick to emphasizing that pretty butterfly and the neat way you took the button away from the needle. Give the kudos to the NASA image - what single thing did you contribute? Franamax 11:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am new here and I apologize if this is what is considered as a feature candidate. I also note that on the temperature bulb it appears that the colour line in the "mercury" don't align with the scale lines. Also, leaving aside the approximate Celsius equivalents which aren't consistent in their rounding, why does Celsius get a degree symbol, whereas the Kelvin does not? Aren't they both degree scales? Maybe that's what Warx means? I'm at three scale-scale-scale's now too! Nice butterfly, way better than the honeybee. Franamax 11:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning units: Take microwaves for instance: Here the wavelength is approximately 10-2 m. If you divide that by m you get 10-2. Which is exactly what it says. This is a perfectly accepted way of notation. Likewise 1012 Hz is the frequency of radiation somewhere between microwave and infrared radiation, and if you divide that by Hz you get the diemnsionless number 1012 exactly as written. There are other notational ways to state the physial dimension as discussed above, but the divide by unit convention used is formally OK. When it comes to Kelvin and Celsius, the degree symbol is not used for Kelvin only for Celsius, so that is formally correct notation too. Finally the rounding. Well is does state an approximate symbol in front of the 10,000,000 K, and quite frankly reducing that number by 273 to get 9,999,727 K does not make much sense considering it is an order of magnitude figure. The scale lines on the thermometer is not supposed to align with the other scale lines. They do not coincide. Hope that clarified some of your concerns. -- Slaunger 15:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slaunger is correct. This is a perfectly normal and commonplace method of displaying units on a graph. Physicists do it this way all the time. Degree symbols are never used with Kelvin (as it's an absolute scale, the concept of 'degree' is not appropriate). --MichaelMaggs 07:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 supports, 2 opposes, 1 neutral => waiting for other nomination to be closed Benh 09:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
=> not featured (the other one has same count of support but less oppose) -- Cecil 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:EM Spectrum Properties edit.svg, featured[edit]

Edited version[edit]

  • Hi guys! Due to comments over at en, I've put in a continuous colour spectrum for the temperatures that (very approximately) show the colour (but not relative intensity except right down in radio) at that wavelength. Again, it's not supposed to be 100% accurate, as this just isn't possible in this drawing due to the non-linearity of the scale. Also corrected a rounding error in the temp scale. Also changed temperature caption. What do you think? Inductiveload 23:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Even better now! ps You should support your own edit.--MichaelMaggs 07:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - This one is better. But I still don't sympathize with the "/unit" thing in this particular picture. Yes, it is used in Physics but this is a simple diagram aimed at common people. On the contrary, "(unit)" is clear to everyone. Alvesgaspar 08:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - The temperature caption is more concise now, still a bit long, but I can't come up with a better solution. Concerning the units. Having established that your convention for the physical units is formally correct I do suggest changing the notation as Alves suggests as I think the (unit) notation is understood better among the broader audience. Your concern above that such a notation could indicate somehow a function which depends on the unit as an argument is a little far fetched. The (unit) notation is widely accepted as well (although us physicists freaks may have slight preferences for the more concise notation). -- Slaunger 10:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know it's far fetched, I was just commenting that if you use brackets it has the same notation and is therefore (very slightly) imprescise. I don't think anyone would actually do it. At least I hope not, becuase someone who could realistically make that mistake surely wouldn't know about the concept of a function anyway... xD. Inductiveload 10:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Changed to (units) under all the pressure ;). My physics teacher would turn in his tweed jacket but it seems like a pretty unaminous opinion here and over at en. Not something worth digging any heels in over, is it? Inductiveload 10:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment Just don't tell your physics teacher about the great work you are doing at commons ;-) -- Slaunger 10:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 supports, 0 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:EM_Spectrum_Properties_edit.svg&oldid=11636945"