Talk:Energy/Archive 4

message: Perhaps it is inevitable, but the addition of explanatory text to this disambiguation page is beginning to change it into an unnecessary and redundant re-incarnation of the old "Energy" article (before it was subdivided). Is that really what you guys want? Let us remove the overview text and keep this just a list of pointers! JRSpriggs 08:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, we need an article-length peice on Energy in the natural sciences and technology which covers all the topics seen here collected under "energy and technology" and which was something like the old "Energy in physics" before it got too long. It could have as "main articles" for each section, all of the articles you see in that category here.  Why do we need an intermediate length article on "real" energy?  Because there needs to be some introductory article to the transformations of that sort of energy which is quantified in joules, whether in the natural or biological sciences or in technology. There's a certain sweeping story of how that kind of energy makes the universe work, which has really (by now) been totally butchered and distributed among subarticles, on energy in the sciences and technologies. So the story is really gone. If you want to read about how initial Big Bang energy, together with newly created space and quantum states to expand into, makes the universe run-- i.e., how the low entropy energy showed up at universe creation, and it is even now stored and filtered and suddenly released to give us all the phenomena that makes stuff "go," even now-- THEN you have to read all those subarticles. Too long. But now, there's no other choice. SBHarris 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that this is a vote, but I agree with this. Robert K S 20:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'd take a stab at writing such a thing, but if I have to work against the blowing winds of various editors who've been responsible for carving this up to now, I won't bother. It's not worth the reversion wars. SBHarris 20:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why the various editors--actually only one--need to sit on their hands and let others have a chance for a change. Robert K S 09:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do you really want to recreate the old Energy article under the guise of a disambiguation page? 

message: I just clicked on this page and found it with one sentence, so I wrote a quick history overview, without first looking at the talk page or knowing that it was a disambig.  Anyway, the history section gives the reader a good springboard with which to dig into the numerous related links. --Sadi Carnot 17:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History disambig 

message: From the content forking page: "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article.  Hence, whoever decided to change this page into a disambig was doing so in opposition to good encyclopedia writing protocol.  Both Encarta and Britannica, for example, have overview articles on energy.  Basically, we need to have at least the top 10 uses of the term "energy" defined on this page in the form of stubby header sections with "see main" links above each overview paragraph. The average reader isn't going to know how to wade through all the various links as they are now. --Sadi Carnot 09:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the document to which you referred says "Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.". Articles which are too long must be subdivided. JRSpriggs 11:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JR, Wikipedia:Summary style does not say that article which are too long must be "disambiged" it says they must be made "summary style", i.e. short summary paragraphs need to accompany each "see main" redirect.  See: entropy and thermodynamics for examples.  This page will need to be de-disambiged in the future. --Sadi Carnot 22:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember what happened. First, the sections which did not deal with physics were separated into articles such as Energy (chemistry). So far so good. Then  decided to move the main article to Energy (physics) (perhaps this was an error?). This left a redirect at Energy. I realized that there were many articles which had equal claim to the name "Energy" and that this would result, sooner or later, in "Energy" being made into a disambiguation page. So anticipating the inevitable, I converted it to a disambiguation page myself and added many links. Then it grew like mad on its own, confirming my belief that a disambiguation page was needed. JRSpriggs 07:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I really like the idea put forth by JRSpriggs of creating another article "History of energy", and moving the content of the subsection History on the present disambiguation page to that article. Let us leave a disambiguation page as the MoS recommends it to be.Hallenrm 03:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Content forking]] 

message: Just to forewarn everybody on this page, I plan on doing a full-rewrite on this page, so that Wikipedia as a decent approximately 32kb article on energy, on all the main topics, not just energy (physics).  I will write it similar in style (header and section-size wise) to that of the thermodynamics article, which is the science of energy transformations.  I’m short on time presently, but unless someone else does for me, I will then do it.  I would appreciate outline suggestions below. I hope we can all work together on this.  Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 17:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great! 221.190.2.230 00:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, go for it. Cover all fields where energy is defined and measured in joules, and ignore the rest, which is now covered elsewhere, and available on disambig. Use the (now) fragmented science articles as your "main" directs for subsections. Energy (science) is fine as a working title, but that sort of leaves out science energy (in joules) as used in technology, industry, commerce (i.e. the U.S. uses 13 terajoules a year now, of which 9.4 is from fossil fuels). Thoughts? SBHarris 02:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks for the encouragement.  It seems to be a new user who created this situation by moving the energy page to energy (physics).  To give an idea of the problem this creates, I just happened to have started Willard Gibbs’ 1876 magnum opus On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances, a graphical analysis of multi-phase chemical systems.  Gibbs is described by Wilhelm Ostwald as the "founder of chemical energetics".  The opening sentence to this treatise is: “The comprehension of the laws which govern any material system is greatly facilitated by considering the energy and entropy of the system in the various states of which it is capable.”  Here we see the problem.  Energy is currently linked to a disambig page, whereas entropy goes to a full article.  In any event, it will probably take me a few more weeks until I have a full day available to dig into this project.  To clarify, I will be using this page, i.e. “energy”, to write the article, not energy (science) as Lumos3 and SBHarris suggest. I will put extraneous links at energy (disambiguation).  I will use the entropy article and thermodynamics articles as role models along with Britannica’s 1911 articles on energy and energetics as good templates.  Put a desired section or page outline below if you have one.  Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 00:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I predict you'll have problems with the same editor who moved energy to energy (physics), since what you're proposing is basically to undo that change, by moving a lot of the energy (physics) content back to THIS page, as well as the other science and tech uses. That's all fine with me (Gibbs wasn't refering to musical energy or aura/prana/chi energy anyway), and I'd like the scientific definition to be the default one, and the others to be "refer to disambig". Not everybody agrees, however. Anyway, no need to start from scratch. The original energy article (for example ) had a lot of good perspective and info in it, before the meaning-expanders and pruners and disarticulators got hold of it.SBHarris 06:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree.  Hallen will conform. This is not Hallenpedia.  One thing I will attempt to do differently is to keep this page as light as possible in overview-style, shuttling any lengthy derivations and equations to subsidiary pages.  In this manner, we can have a nice overview on energy, from the various sub-branches, thus giving the new article room to grow.  Talk soon: --Sadi Carnot 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've been watching this article disintegrate from the sidelines—I haven't the knowledge to contribute anything useful—so I'm pleased to see that Sadi Carnot plans to put it back together again. Best of luck!--Old Moonraker 21:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Moonraker, energy is one of my favorite topics.  In the last few months, for instance, I bought Crosbie Smith's 1998 The Science of Energy - a Cultural History of Energy Physics in Victorian Britain as well as Vaclav Smil's 1999 Energies - an Illustrated Guide to the Biosphere and Civilization.  Talk soon: --Sadi Carnot 00:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everything in the universe is either [[matter]] or [[energy]] 

message: Looking at the above discussion, I can see that the physicists editors on the wikipedia, atleast the people participating in the above discussion are really paranoid? After all, what are they grudging about when they indeed have a full article dealing with energy in physics. I think, I have an answer, they want to dominate any article on energy, and that is the reason why scientist editors of other desciplines seldom contributed to the other article, because the number of physicists editors outnumber and try to dominate. The main advantage of the present form of energy page, is that it gives space to all sectore of human endaveour that deals with energy. Can, dear Sadi Carnot ever cover all these aspects in a single article of 32k. Let him. come up with an article that gets critical acclaim from all the scientist editors, and not just the disgrunted few who participated in the above discussion, only then hi should try to change the present formatHallenrm
:What did I tell you, Sadi? Look, Hallenrm, you had your way with the old energy article, and have now managed to fragment it into nothing more than a fancy disambiguation page, with no page now which covers and summarizes the many uses of scientific energy, which is the kind of thing many/most readers will want (and an article on science-energy such as every enclyclopedia has, except this one). So leave us alone to do it, Hallenrm. You've done your damage, and I for one am very tired of reading your comments here which mostly contain insults (including the one above), and of dealing with your extensive deletions of other people's work. Sadi and Robert and I are going to ArbCom and make the case that you should be blocked from editing this particular article, if you persist in this kind of disruption. SBHarris 21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hallen, the more you talk, the worse it gets.  Take a Wikibreak and come back when you're cooled off. --Sadi Carnot 00:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are the physicists so paranoid? 

message: Why are there two disambig pages, Energy and Energy (disambiguation). And why isn't the article Energy (physics) not here, as it would be in any real encyclopedia? --Pjacobi
::Yes, there are two disambig pages. A new user did this. Ridiculous isn't it?  That's what I said when I got here.  Anyway, I have volunteered to re-write the page, unless someone does it before me.  I'll contact everyone, when I begin to dig in.  Talk soon: --Sadi Carnot 00:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's only one disambiguation page, Energy (disambiguation).  This article is a valid link target, as an encyclopedic article about energy.  It may (and probably does) need cleanup, and is getting it. -- JHunterJ 21:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not getting it at the moment, due to the intransigence of a single editor. Every one of the editors on this page, and also those editing energy (physics), which is where much of the material on this page was ultimately moved (along with putting dabs in various other science pages) feels that energy should direct primarily to a page which summarizes science-based uses of the word, and everything else should go to the disambiguation page. One editor disagrees. That's where we're stuck. SBHarris 22:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps it's more a list than a disambig, but for sure it isn't an article. For comparison look at the Energy article in other languages' Wikipedias. --Pjacobi 22:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in agreement with the editors who think that the physics topic should be at the base name.  I'm only here, however, after the disambig-cleanup tag was placed; the list of energy types with gallery and stub-like text wasn't a disambig.  So I split off the stuff that was a disambig.  Getting the correct article here needs an merge or move. -- JHunterJ 22:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JH, I’m going to do the whole thing, as I have said.  There’s not going to be any merge or move.  We have to be proactive with our current situation, i.e. make the best out of it.  In other words, I will use concise chunks of other articles (the main ones listed here), add a few new references, etc., and streamline a nice “overview-style” energy article.  Then we can all let it grow again, while keeping the more rigorous equations and technical details sidelined on focused pages. --Sadi Carnot 00:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it can be done as a distinct article, that'd be great.  I'm not a subject-matter expert, so I'm having a hard time envisioning it as other than the Energy (physics) page. But we (you, since I'm not going to be editing this one) don't have to make the best of what's here; the move and merge processes are in place to handle disruptions like this without having to re-invent the wheel (unless you want to, or are inventing a different thing altogether). -- JHunterJ 00:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I’m also going to have to do a merge of psychic energy (Freud’s term) and energy (psychological) (the same topic) to psychological energy (a more modern term), or something similar. --Sadi Carnot 01:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sadi, all I see is, that you are effectively destroying the readability of Wikipedia by fragment the topic into way too many articles. --Pjacobi 08:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pjacobi, you are misunderstood.  I just arrived at this page a few day ago.  It was a new novice editor: User: Hallenrm, that turned the original 40-50 kb energy article into a disambig page.  I haven’t done anything to the page.  As you see it, is basically how I found it when I got here.  You might want to review Talk:Energy (physics) and this and here to get a clearer picture of what’s going on here.  Later: --Sadi Carnot 12:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's going on here? 

message: Hallenrm, I see that you are the one who is causing all the problems here.  I suggest you take a Wikibreak, for at least two weeks, from editing.  Come back with a clear head and then work with us.  Again this is a community project.  Talk soon: --Sadi Carnot 00:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Hallenrm]] 

message: I still won't be able to do a full dig into the article for a bit, but in the mean time maybe we can vote on a good intro pic to use for the new article to represent all the related energy articles equally?  Please visit: Wikipedia:Commons or upload a free-content image if you have one.  I have put the previous gallery on a sub-page (Talk:Energy/Photo-gallery) for the moment. --Sadi Carnot 08:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the boring solar panel pic with a new pic (the sunflower, with its encompassing caption) and put the old pic in: Talk:Energy/Photo-gallery.  We can always replace it if there is some big disagreement. --Sadi Carnot 11:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening image vote 

message: The info box next to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy#Energy_and_the_laws_of_motion needs to be removed. It shows a picture of force being the derivative of momentum. These two quantities are completely different than energy, and referencing a completely different physics concept without explanation is misleading to someone trying to understand energy in classical mechanics.
I would remove it myself, but my lack of editing skills might result in some other part of the article being damaged.
I agree, I was just studying and noticed this error. Specifically I was looking for the difference between work, energy and momentum, this just confused everything!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.161.13 (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info Box Needs Removal 

message: Just a question that arose when reading about meteorological phenomena: what about ocean currents? 
For your reference: 
(...)meteorological phenomena like wind, rain, hail, snow, lightning, tornadoes and hurricanes, are all a result of energy transformations brought about by solar energy on the planet Earth.
I realized that ocean currents are mainly caused by the gravity of the moon, as well as solar heating, and winds. The latter two of them are a result of solar energy, but moon gravity is not solar energy... 
Ocean currents are not included in this article about energy, which is not directly the point here, but don't you think that many of those meteorological phenomena listed are caused by solar energy as well as gravity forces from the moon? Or is the moon not an energy source on earth like the sun is? The ocean currents caused by it can generate electricity as is done in the Norwegian fjords... 
However, I can't see how this would work mechanically. I mean, the moon pulls on the water masses and causes the water to rise where the earth surface faces the moon, as well as on the opposite side, while the earth surfaces moves underneath the water mass. The resulting water currents would slow down the rotation of the earth, wouldn't they? And then 
I found this page helpful about moon gravity:
http://howthingswork.virginia.edu/print.php?title=The%20Sea%20and%20Surfing&startdate=0&enddate=99999999&topic=the%20sea%20and%20surfing
I hope this is not too much off-topic :-)
--Lindenlion (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right.  Since tides are caused by the gravity of the moon, and, along with them, currents (am i correct so far?), then air "currents" aka wind, would also be caused by the gravity of the moon.  Plus there is no citation for this - how do you put a "needs citation" thingy on the article?  Also, one more question: does the force of gravity from the moon count as a "transformation of energy" when it acts on things like the tide?  Is a force containing of energy?  I found that force is mass by acceleration, but I could not find the mathematical definiton of energy, so that leads to another question, which is what is the mathematical definition of energy?  BriEnBest (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meteorological phenomenons and moon gravity... 

message: A user has asked at an administrative noticeboard if this page belongs here or at the original location Energy.  The content that it currently at the page called Energy should be merged into the page Energy (disambiguation); the final location of that page also needs to be discussed.  What opinions do others have about the correct names for these pages? CMummert · talk 13:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to avoid being involved too much here.  However, I can say that Energy (disambiguation) does not comply with MoS:DAB.  It should be just a bulleted list of various articles on energy, with a short description of each item in the list.  Energy complies with MoS:DAB, but it could use some short descriptions for each term.  Dr. Submillimeter 14:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I can see that such a big topic might need subpages like Energy (biology), but why can't there be a normal main article about energy instead of making Energy a disambiguation page?  Surely energy in biology or geoscience has the same meaning as energy in physics.  Can someone explain?  Gnixon 15:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, for a time this article was a survey of the concept of Energy across all of the sciences and showed how they are all in fact aspects of the same thing. The new arrangement is decidedly nineteenth century in its fragmentation of a unifying concept. I propose something like this is recreated at the Energy article, they are all in fact aspects of the same thing and need a single article, not a list.  Lumos3 18:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. Robert K S 19:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am in full agreement with the opinions expressed by Dr. Submillimeter. In response to the opinions of Robert K S, I can only say that he is not in tune with the modern technology. Long articles were in fashion when only print media was the mode of communication, with the advent of hyperlinking fragmentation cannot be really an issue, because a reader can judge what s/he may be interested in through the title and a brief peep on the page. All the content need not be together. In my opinion the best solution could be adding a line or two below each link summarizing the content of the article. As regards the opinions of Lumos, I was indeed very comfortable with a brief main article on energy across all sciences, but then there are problems, since energy is identified as a core physics topics all physicists feel that all possible information regarding the application of the concept in physics needs to be accommodated on the page and once that is done the article becomes too long. Obviously there is need for some compromise that is transparent to all the past, present and future editors of this article.Charlie 04:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we went back to one normal "Energy" article, but worked on pushing most of the material in long sections like Biology to subpages like "Energy (biology)"?  Gnixon 04:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The forked subarticles are so short that one wonders what would distinguish them, keeping them from being merged into the main article.  This is true for all save the "(physics)" branch (this article), which retains references to the general concept of energy.  This is all the more true given that articles or sections of articles already exist for the energy concept specialized into its fields, e.g. biological thermodynamics for energy (biology) and Potential_energy#Chemical_potential_energy for energy (chemistry).  I also note that the new forked articles are lacking proper lead and references sections. Robert K S 11:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  It's nice to note that you notice fine nuances like references too. Why don't you put in some effort to replace the references in these articles yourself than simply grudging about others efforts.Charlie 05:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because I disagree with the spirit and execution of these contentious, unilateral, undiscussed article splits and I refuse to put any effort into these new expansions of your "energy article domain", Charlie--I'm not going to throw good money after bad. Robert K S 06:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's very interesting indeed! You still find time to visit this page and posting messages (Uncalled for butting in). Indeed very good investment of time! Charlie 08:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree with KSRoberts on the above aspects, but I feel once these articles are independent other editors would find it encouraging to work towards improving them, which does not happen while they are part of a very long article, with notifications informing editors to work towards shortening the article. I do believe that some time must be allowed to relapse to allow some serious thinking about Energy article about the questions, "Is energy a topic to be dominated by physicists alone? If no what should be the guidelines for its structure and growth? Evidently your laissez faire policy followed so far is not the most appropriate  for a subject like Energy! Regarding the questions raised by CMummert in the beginning of this talk, I am of the opinion that the minimal change we can do is to merge the present Energy article with energy (disambiguation) page.[User:Hallenrm|Charlie]] 17:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I also disagree with this article fragmentation. Energy (chemistry) is completely unnecessary; energy doesn't have a different meaning in chemistry and in physics. --Itub 11:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please continue discussion at: Talk:Energy.  Thanks. Problem is being solved. --Sadi Carnot 01:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page moves 

message: Not many people have commented here, but of those who have, only Charlie (Hallenrm) seems to favor the new arrangement, which has separate pages for energy in physics, chemistry, biology, etc.  Others have said there's only one concept of energy being discussed in those fields, that all the pages except Energy (physics) are just stubs, and that there are already pages which address the applications of energy that are relevant to each field (e.g., biological thermodynamics).  Charlie has said he hopes pages like Energy (Chemistry) will grow now that they've been created.  Gnixon 16:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please continue discussion at: Talk:Energy.  Thanks. Problem is being solved. --Sadi Carnot 01:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The argument for the changes

message: I would like to propose that a section about Energy Problems, is created to discuss issues about Global Warming, oil depletion,etc. we can not go on pretending those issues do not exist.
I have sent the following text, to Hillary Clinton,and would like to know your opinion.
----
Proposal about Public Policies.
THEME: Energy.
The world requires, under the leadership of the U.S.A. a reform in energy policies:
The world needs, new Energy policies, based in energies that do not pollute, and do not create increases in the prices of corn or sugar (bio-fuels) for the poor people of the world, considering that bio-fuels do contain Carbon and therefore still generate CO2.
The only energy that does not pollute is Hydrogen (produced by algae), or hydraulic plants (like Hoover Dam), solar, wind, sea waves, geothermic, etc.
Nuclear energy is dangerous,as seen in history.
It is necessary that the rich countries, promote the creation of Alternative Energy Research Institutes, to research and promote solutions.
Mexico, Aguascalientes, Dagoflores --189.166.5.98 (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals for the Energy Article 

message: OK I understand Sadi Carnot's proposal is something like this. Lumos3 09:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically yes, except for point (3); we'll have to see that bridge when we cross it. --Sadi Carnot 09:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, the Energy (German, w/Google translation) is interesting, especially the table.  I hope we are one the same page now.  If so, please cast your vote at the straw poll at Talk:Energy. --Sadi Carnot 18:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no, the article on energy should not be limited only to the usage of the term in sciences. That is only one aspect of it. If it is an article on wikioedia, which is not an encyclopedia of science for scientists alone, it shold have much wider scope covering all types of usages of the termHallenrm 18:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the purpose of disambiguation pages. No need to pollute the main energy article with completely unrelated meanings of the word. --Itub 19:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  The principal meaning (i.e., energy in all the sciences) belongs at the principal location, then all additional, less common meanings belong on a disambig.  We do this all the time in lots of fields, so I really don't see how this is about Wikipedia unduly favoring science.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is Wikipedia policy—see here. --Old Moonraker 08:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, of course the principal meaning of "energy" is the science one. That's not to say others don't exist, just that science-based energy is the main use of the word and thus should be the main page, with other uses as the re-direct to disambiguation. The science energy is  generally the number #1 definition in dictionaries. Had our lone-opinion editor realized this, we could have saved ourselves a boatload of trouble. What's the vote up to, now? SBHarris 13:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree with the need for a subpage: this will only increase the mess. I have reverted the original move, which was in blatant breach of style guidelines (and common sense). "Die Energie der Welt ist constant, die Entropie (diesem Teil) der Welt strebt einer Maximum zu..." Physchim62 (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy articles proposal straw poll 

message: Hallen states: i would grant that he is a genius, but I will wait till he accomkplishes the task successfully, and applies himself to the task seriously rather than just giving warnings that have ni meaning, by the very nature of wikipedia. 
COMMENT:
People are banned all the time from article when they are insulting or nonconstructive. And I don't just mean sarcastically naming somebody a genius, as Hallen does, above. In the short time (since May 1) that this article has been in its present form, Hallen has left at least one insulting edit summary in the main article:
("edits by sadi Carnot seem to lead nowhere except grunting in frustration") 
And not less than 3 insulting comments in the TALK section.
 (Editors are lazy)  (Editors are paranoid)  (Two editors can hardly write sensible lines)
Nor is this odd behavior for him. There are a huge number of examples from Hallen's posts of this nature going back for more than a year, for he's insulted dozens of people, some many times. I'm quite capable of going back, collecting them all, and laying them before ArbCom. It surely will get Hallen banned in some way, because that is NOT how Wikipedia works. I hope I don't have to do this, as I don't want to do the work. And Hallen won't like the result if I do have to do it. But I will do it, if this behavior doesn't change. I hereby promise it. SBHarris 20:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Banning

message: Energy should be an article about energy in the sciences. A summary mention of industrial energy conversion would be fine too. E.g. :da:Energi and  :es:Energía look OK, :de:Energie generally speaking also, but it has grown a bit messy. I assume they all derive from a rather old version of the English article. --Pjacobi 16:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Energy (German, w/Google translation) is interesting, especially the table.  I hope we are one the same page now.  If so, please cast your vote at the straw poll at Talk:Energy. --Sadi Carnot 18:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no, the article on energy should not be limited only to the usage of the term in sciences. That is only one aspect of it. If it is an article on wikioedia, which is not an encyclopedia of science for scientists alone, it shold have much wider scope covering all types of usages of the termHallenrm 18:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the purpose of disambiguation pages. No need to pollute the main energy article with completely unrelated meanings of the word. --Itub 19:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  The principal meaning (i.e., energy in all the sciences) belongs at the principal location, then all additional, less common meanings belong on a disambig.  We do this all the time in lots of fields, so I really don't see how this is about Wikipedia unduly favoring science.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is Wikipedia policy—see here. --Old Moonraker 08:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, of course the principal meaning of "energy" is the science one. That's not to say others don't exist, just that science-based energy is the main use of the word and thus should be the main page, with other uses as the re-direct to disambiguation. The science energy is  generally the number #1 definition in dictionaries. Had our lone-opinion editor realized this, we could have saved ourselves a boatload of trouble. What's the vote up to, now? SBHarris 13:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions from [[User:Pjacobi]]

message: There seems to be momentum in the consensus (8-to-1); hence, for the moment, I’ll start a working subpage here: Talk:Energy/Energy (template).  Although, it will still take me another week or two to really dig in.  In any event, I welcome contributions on the working sub-page.  As soon as I get a free day, I’ll pull the whole thing together nicely. Thanks for all the comments thus far. --Sadi Carnot 01:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the need for a subpage: this will only increase the mess. I have reverted the original move, which was in blatant breach of style guidelines (and common sense). "Die Energie der Welt ist constant, die Entropie (diesem Teil) der Welt strebt einer Maximum zu..." Physchim62 (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Working sub-page

message: The history of the Energy pseudo-disambiguation page was lost in the (correct, I believe) move of Energy (physics) to the plain title. However, the contents of that page were needed for a merge into Energy (disambiguation), and since it will be part of a merge, it will be necessary to keep the page history under the GFDL. I'll be working for the next little while to sort out and restore the histories, and for a little bit it will appear that I'm undoing the move. The contents of the physics page will be back here again soon, so don't worry about it. I'm going to move the history of the old pseudo-disambiguation page to Energy (Disambiguation) (sic) and adding a mergeto tag to funnel the necessary contents to Energy (disambiguation). Please help out by merging entries and finally redirecting the page if you have the time. Dekimasuよ! 23:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finished cleanup. Just need a merge to Energy (disambiguation) now. Dekimasuよ! 23:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a very shabby job done by Dekimatsu in the name of cleanup. Let him brush up his basics in energy before he attempts such jobs. Secondly I do not see thyat he has moved the contents of the Olsd History of Energy to this page Hallenrm 03:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dekimatsu has done an admirable job in helping to clean up the mess which Hallenrm caused in the first place. The former history of this page can now be found at Energy (Disambiguation), where it can stay without causing any problems to anybody. Energy (Disambiguation) will eventually become a redirect to Energy (disambiguation).  As for brushing up on the basics of energy, I would suggest that Hallenrm do exactly that, just as soon as he or she finishes the crash course in basic politeness which is so obviously necessary. Physchim62 (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I am a new editor on wikipedia, I stumbled on this page because of my interest in energy. I did a bit of preliminary research before making any comment. On the basis of my readings I really cannot not concor with Physchim62, especially after I visted his talk page. He really cannot insult Hallenrm, because his personal record of politeness on wikipedia can hardly be called cleanArjun2007 18:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try doing the same research on Hallen's comments. He's an equal-opportunity insulter,and has insulted Sadi Carnot, Robert KS, and various others. I believe he's left a fresh one just today. SBHarris 10:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page history 

message: I see that there has been a serious attempt by SBHarris ans KSRoberts to undo all my edits on this page. I saw some merit in the way Sadi wanted to acheive a reformatting, but it appaears Roberts and Harris can't just wait to acheive their sole ambition in lifeHallenrm 04:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is to a decent energy article that is built from a consensus? Please stop your personal attacks. --Itub 05:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Did somebody say sole ambition? Robert K S 20:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, pretty funny. Hallen has 1/6th of my total edits on Wikipedia, on about the same fraction of the 1000 pages I've worked on (1/6th). Yet his edits on energy are 2.5 times mine. Hey, Hallen, Kate's Tool doesn't lie about how people spend their time on Wikipedia. It would therefore be a VERY bad idea for you to go around accusing anybody else of monomania, given your own edit statistics, which are here for all to see.SBHarris 22:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In this respect I would only like to quote from the Wikipedia:Edit_count. It says "Some users partially base their Request for adminship votes on the edit counts of the candidates. Reasons for this may include protection against sock puppetry, and the fact that active admins are needed to help with admin backlogs.
As edits can vary greatly in size and quality, it is important not to put too much weight into someone's edit count, and to avoid worrying too much about one's own edit count. Edit counts do not necessarily reflect the value of a user's contributions to the Wikipedia project. As the saying goes, "Quality, not quantity". Hallenrm 07:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You missed the point. You referred to my effort on this article above as my "sole ambition in life". But the record shows that my edits to this article amount to 2.4% of my total Wikipedia activity. On the other hand, edits to this article amount to 35% of YOUR total edits. So who's closer to having edits on energy as their "sole ambition"?  You're the one who spends a third of his Wikipedia time here, not me. I can't find another Wikipedia editor of this article who spends a larger fraction of their time here. You're the champ.  Furthermore, eight editors here disagree with your handing of this page (nine if you count Laura Scudder, who has made her opinion plain) and you can't get a single vote to support your point of view. Thus, it appears that in spite of the time you put in, the "quality" of your approach isn't apparent to any of the other people working here-- It's not just Robert and me who don't like what you did here. None of us do. SBHarris 07:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, the point's made.  Let's remember, this talk page is for discussion about the article, and not about Wikipedians.  I hope we can let this be and get back to improving the article.  Much love, Robert K S 08:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m sorry I’ve been away (still kind of tied up); in the mean time, however, I have been letting my sockpuppets Itub and Physchim62 do my biddings for me (that is, at least according to the Hallenrm Conspiracy Theory).  Talk later: --Sadi Carnot 05:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Sadi Carnot 

message: Two quick things--(1) Was it not helpful to give the word's etymology right up front?  Is there any reason it shouldn't be restored?  (2) Is it helpful to include the qualifier "characteristic of the universe" in the definition of energy?  Is there any non-theoretical-mathematical topic on Wikipedia that isn't "of the universe"?  Does it impart useful information?  Is there any reason "characteristic of the universe" shouldn't be deleted? Robert K S 19:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it's pretty standard to present such an etymology within the first paragraph.  I really can't tell what "characteristic of the universe" is even really supposed to mean here.  Unless it is characteristic of the universe as opposed to some other place, it seems like a convoluted way of saying "exists".  — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I zapped the etymology partly because I was looking for a better one (athough thats no reason why the current one shouldn't stay, at least for the moment) and partly because I thought it would be better in the "History" section. "characteristic of the universe" was meant to be a reference to the conservation of energy at the scale of the universe, but if people don't understand it then it should definitely go. Physchim62 (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New changes to lead 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy (chemistry). --Itub 07:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If their existence is an unbearable affront to your pride (since your permission was not obtained before creating them), you should propose that they be merged into this article rather than deleting them and destroying all that work. JRSpriggs 10:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy (chemistry) nominated for deletion 

message: The sentence: "Yet, energy is not simply a mathematical concept or a philosophical principle: it is a measurable quantity with definite properties." contradicts with Richard Feynman's statement few paragraphs below: "...That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; ... It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact..."
What is the property of energy anyway?
Also, what's the conclusion to this statement: "It was argued for some years whether energy was a substance (the caloric) or merely a physical quantity, such as momentum." So, is energy a substance or a physical quantity?
:It's nothing. Energy is just energy. Defined by "the ability to produce work". Undefinable by anything else. Slartibartfast1992 15:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As has already been discussed, energy cannot be strictly defined as the ability to do work. Robert K S 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy, a measurable quantity with definite properties? 

message: I really think that the section reading "electrical energy" should read "electromagnetic energy". Why? It includes magnetism and electromagnetic radiation inside it. We should just place the whole main part of the section "Electrical Energy", ehich is devoted to electricity, inside "electromagnetic energy", which would have subsections of "electrical energy", "magnetism", and "electromagnetic radiation" after an introuction listing the three subdivisions of this type of energy. Leaving it like this makes it look as though electricity is the phenomenon causing light and magetism, while, in fact, they are all just forms of Electromagnetic Energy. I really want some consensus before I make this change, so please state your opinions. Slartibartfast1992 15:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electromagnetic Energy 

message: I have revamped the introduction (diff):
*I have tweaked the definition to reads as a more general idea.
*I have moved the types of energy into a list.
*Moved around/merged/separated paragraphs.
*Removed work from the introduction as this point should be made latter in the article. 
*Linked some terms.
*Reworded parts/quite a lot.
*I took this to be a BB edit.
Thanks, Monkeyblue 11:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MB, I moved the types of energy (back) into the prose before I saw your comment here.  I think a bulleted list would be more appropriate for the body of the article, where it could be made more complete.  Just giving a few in-line examples in the lead should suffice to give people an idea of what the article covers without disrupting its flow.  Gnixon 22:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: There seems to have been some kind of edit war brewing over the last weeks at the heat and thermal energy articles between several editors, primarily User:The Way, that caused User: ScienceApologist to quit Wikipedia.  In any event, the situation still continues; please review Talk:Heat (disambiguation) and Talk:Heat and give your opinion or vote: here . --Sadi Carnot 04:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No merge of [[thermal energy]], [[internal energy]], and [[heat]] 

message: Is energy material???
-PatPeter 16:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the article or ask on WP:VP. Miranda 16:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks I didn't know where to ask. -PatPeter 17:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to respond to PatPeter's confusion which is undoubtedly shared by many readers. I added "Energy is not a substance; it is a quantitative attribute of matter and radiation. In other words, energy is not a thing, but each thing has such-and-such an amount of energy." to the end of the lead. But I was immediately reverted by  who said "rv unencyclopedicly worded, unsourced "clarification"". In my second sentence, I was trying to use simple language to make sure that the message got across to less educated readers. Is that being unencyclopedic? As for a source, this is common knowledge among people conversant with physics. Why is a source necessary for common knowledge? JRSpriggs 02:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "such-and-such" is a little too informal.  I'd suggest keeping everything in the lead should be stated as concisely as possible, saving both technical and informal clarifications for later in the article.  Gnixon 14:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I also find the sentence in the lead, which says "The different forms are all equivalent (in some cases overlapping)[3] and may be converted into the other forms of energy, transferred to other matter or stored.[4] ", very confusing. If energy  "is a scalar physical quantity" How can it be stored. Only a substance or material can be stored, according to my understanding of the colloquial usage of the word stored.Hallenrm 08:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I simplified the paragraph by just cutting that sentence.  The fact that energy can be converted from one form to another is mentioned in the next sentence and can be elaborated upon later in the article.  Gnixon 14:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah this discussion is also going on here on YouTube, because this guy says that if energy is not material it is meta-physical. -PatPeter 19:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick Help I need an Expert 

message: I invite other editors to decide for themselves whether any of the links reinserted by Vig vimarsh enhance the article.  Cripes, the first one isn't what it claims to be at all, i.e. it is not a discussion among physicsts, rather it's just a general forum discussion and clearly not a reliable source.  A poorly chosen or unnecessarily large selection of external links greatly detracts from the value of an article.  My consideration for picking links to be removed was based on these guidelines. Tim Shuba 09:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned some per request. --Sadi Carnot 09:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that looks like a big improvement.  Obviously, choosing a set of external links that do enhance a broad topic such as this is somewhat subjective, and reasonable editors will disagree about the specifics.  Tim Shuba 17:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Tim Shuba should have talked before deleting the links and clearly stated his reasons for doing so rather than just a cryptic WP:ELHallenrm 17:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy&curid=9649&diff=146949987&oldid=146740549 revision] by Vig vimarsh 

message: You have the following equation in the page
   C6H12O6 + 3O2 → 6CO2 + 6H2O
The amount of oxygen on the two sides do not balance. Shouldnt it be
   C6H12O6 + 6O2 → 6CO2 + 6H2O
Cs1kh  —Preceding comment was added at 15:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxygen does not balance 

message: At the beginning of the third paragraph of the section History, I can hardly identify who was represented by the pronoun "He".
In the same paragraph: "He amalgamated all of these laws...", the laws involved are not previously listed.
Chiloa (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy(history). 

message: --209.158.139.250 (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  energyu 

message: is there a latin word that is equivalent to energy?  if so, what is it?  and is there something like "energology," the study of energy?  thanks.  BriEnBest (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This site says "navitas". I have no idea whether that is correct. You could try looking for a , or ask on the Reference desk. Googling for  finds some energy-related links so that's probably a good bet. You can also  and find some energy-related links. There's even a Navitas Energy company, which sounds redundant. --Teratornis (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  latin word for energy? 

message: I see that there's a bit of tendency to see energy as stored in chemical bonds: it isn't. You only get energy stored as rearrangment of bonds from weak to strong. Thus energy in food is not IN the food, but only in the combo of food+oxygen. Similarly, the bonds in ATP don't store energy-- it's stored in the reaction of ATP + water --> AMP plus hydrated PP. ATP breakdown in vacuum would require energy (as the breakage of all chemical bonds does).  I've added a little vingette emphasizing that all energy releases are releases of various potentials stored since the Big Bang. Give me any spontaneous process and in a couple of steps I can show you how that energy was stored as usuable potential, from conditions after the Big Bang. That's the whole point of heat death. I've also added a point from an argument I had here earlier, which is that if you insist on energy being defined as work one system does to another, then heat death demands energy in the universe goes to zero, over time. Say what? We thought energy was conserved! The work one system can do on another is the FREE energy, not the simple energy. SBHarris 03:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some edits 

message: I've posted a long question at Talk:Wind power#Lopsided coverage? asking how best to fit the concepts of "Electricty generation from Wind" and "Wind energy" together. In brief I would like suggestions on which should be the parent and which the sub-articles. I can work with either but have a preference for an organization that matches the way Portal:Energy structures solar and hydro power. Thanks. -Wikianon (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wind power articles organization? 

message: Can somebody plz send me a list of what energy/electricity can travel along?
thanksSylvan wu (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to try asking on the Reference desk. Electric current travels along any conductor, and across electric arcs and corona discharges. Sufficiently high voltages can cause dielectric breakdown. Moving a conductor through a magnetic field causes induced current. Electrical charges can travel on water droplets, see lightning. There is also ball lightning and Saint Elmo's fire. For the more general concept of energy, there are lots of ways to cart it around or beam it: electron beams, electromagnetic radiation, heat pipes, kinetic energy of moving objects or fluids, hydraulic power, compressed air, oil tankers, gas pipelines, any vehicle with a fuel tank or battery, belt drives, sound, etc. --Teratornis (talk) 07:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help please 

message: Some people discourage the use of the term 'relativistic mass'. If we use the term 'invariant mass' as the sole definition of mass, we can derive a formula that relates mass, speed and kinetic energy. In order to conserve momentum in special relativity, we discover the definition of momentum which is different from classical mechanics.
:\vec {p} = \gamma m\vec{v}
:\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}
Where m denotes mass, \vec{v} denotes velocity, v denotes speed and c denotes the speed of light in vacuum.
Kinetic energy of a object with mass possesses is equal to the amount of work to be done on it to accelerate it from rest to its current speed.
:\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}
:E = \int \vec{F} \cdot d\vec{s}
:\gamma^2 c^2 - \gamma^2 v^2 = c^2
:2 \gamma c^2 - 2 \gamma v^2 - 2 \gamma^2 \vec{v} \cdot (\frac{d \vec{v}}{d \gamma}) = 0
:\gamma \vec{v} \cdot d \vec{v} = (c^2 - v^2) d \gamma
:\vec{F}=\frac{d \vec{p}}{dt} = \frac{d}{dt} (\gamma m \vec{v}) = m (\gamma \frac{d \vec{v}}{dt} + \vec{v} \frac{d \gamma}{dt})
:E= m \int (\gamma \frac{d \vec{v}}{dt} + \vec{v} \frac{d \gamma}{dt}) \cdot d\vec{s} = m \int \gamma \frac{d \vec{v}}{dt} \cdot d\vec{s} + m \int \vec{v} \frac{d \gamma}{dt} \cdot d\vec{s} = m \int \gamma \vec{v} \cdot d\vec{v} + m \int v^2 d\gamma = m \int c^2 d\gamma = \gamma m c^2 + C_0
Where E denotes kinetic energy, m denotes mass, \vec{s} denotes displacement ,c denotes the speed of light, \vec{v} denotes velocity, v denotes speed and C_0 denotes a constant to be determined. Since an object has zero kinetic energy when its speed is zero, so we deduce that
:E = \gamma mc^2 - mc^2 = (\gamma-1)mc^2
From the above derivations, besides getting the equation of kinetic energy, we cannot conclude that mass is a form of energy or see any hint on it. However, if we use the notion of 'relativistic mass', we can see a suggestion on the equivalence of mass and energy. The reason is as the following. We define momentum is a product of relativistic mass and velocity. (This is actually the original definition of inertial mass, see inertia) As such, we get the relationship between relativistic mass and the rest mass.
:m = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}
:E_k = (m - m_0)c^2
:dE_k = c^2 dm
Where m denotes relativistic mass, m_0 denotes rest mass, E_k denotes kinetic energy and v denotes speed. We can conclude that the change of kinetic energy is equal to the change of relativistic mass, or simply mass. This implies that rest mass may be just a form of energy. We can further analyze if mass is really identical to energy. 
As shown above, Special Relativity allows the possibility of the equivalence of the mass and energy. It suggests that way. However, the relationship cannot be derived directly from Special Relativity. It does not give a strict proof on the equivalence of mass and energy. We only see the suggestion when we use 'relativistic mass'.
After getting the relationship between momentum of a photon, its frequency and its energy, the equivalence of mass and energy can be proven. (This relationship is proven by Compton Scattering Experiment and photoelectric effect)
:|\vec{p}|=\frac{h}{\lambda}=\frac{h\nu}{c}=\frac{E}{c}=mc
:E=mc^2
Where E denotes energy, m denotes (relativistic) mass, \vec{p} denotes momentum, h denotes plank constant and c denotes the speed of light in vacuum. We consider a thought experiment to see if mass is really equivalent to energy. In COM frame, an object is said to be at rest. It emits two photons in opposite direction with the same magnitude of momentum. As required in conservation of momentum, the object will remain at rest after the emission of two photons in COM frame. If an observer moves in the same direction as one of the photon in COM frame, he will see these photons carry different magnitude of momentum. The magnitude of momentum observed b the observer can be computed by using relativistic Doppler effect. According to the observer, the object does not change its speed after the emission, the only way to reduce momentum is to reduce mass.
In conclusion, the equivalence of mass and energy can be seen as a suggestion of special relativity. We can't really derive it from special relativity directly. We get a very clear hint however. See also mass-energy equivalence
Thljcl (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can the equivalence of mass and energy to be derived from Special Relativity? 

message: There has been much debate over whether the 'physical quantity' meaning of the word "energy" is truly the primary meaning; alternatives might be one of the others on Energy (disambiguation) or perhaps there is no primary meaning, simply several relatively equal-weight meanings. This debate is ongoing and is quite heated. It seems to me that this talk page is the correct place for this debate rather than the dab talk page or the various other talk pages onto which it has spilled. If you decide there is no real primary meaning then this page should be moved to Energy (physics), or similar, and Energy used as the disambiguation page. I have no axe to grind here but I would appreciate it if editors familar with the topic could comment here. Thanks. Abtract (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary meaning 

message: The source at http://www.serve.com/herrmann/einpdf.pdf does not seem peer-reviewed and print-published, but it is well researched and it is not polemic. I quote it in the article for the convenience of not searching the web for other sources. I somebody else finds a better source, he/she may replace that source, or simply add an extra source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the source about Poincare 

message: Some of  these relate to power generation, or even tourism in sunny climates, rather than the subject of this article and are to a greater or lesser degree WP:SPAM. I'm suggesting that it's time for another modest clearout. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the idea of links is to offer the reader more information on the subject. Not to advertise companies loosely related to energy. FFMG (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was a lot of junk there.  I went in and deleted every link that wasn't obviously and clearly relevant and useful. --TS 13:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "External links" once again 

message: This article is about energy as a physical phenomenon. Americans for Balanced Energy Choices is an interest group for the coal industry. While it is true that they advocate the conversion of chemical energy into mechanical energy, their organization and mission is completely irrelevant to someone who would like to learn more about what energy is and how it works. Just to be absolutely clear, I am not removing the link because of the substance of their mission, but simply because their mission is irrelevant to the substance of the Energy article. --70.108.40.152 (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there a link to the article for "Americans for Balanced Energy Choices" 

message: there is no such thing as 'magnetic energy', as Magnetism is not energy but is actually a push or a pull, and this makes magnetism a force. Energy can be converted from one form to another, but that is not the case with magnetism, or 'magnetic energy'.--S9718483fb (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No. A magnetic field has energy, as you can see when you disconnect a powered solenoid and the magnetic field energy is converted to a spark (as in an old auto spark coil). The equations given in the article are correct. SBHarris 19:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnetic energy? 

message: Either the work page or this should change definitions in the introductions. As it is, a curious individual, or perplexed student, comes  to the energy page to see the definition of energy: Energy is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force. 
Fair enough, so the inquisitive student will ask..."hmm, what's work?" being wikipedia one can conveniently click on the link, unfortunately one finds in the introduction: mechanical work is the amount of energy transferred by a force acting through a distance.
It may make sense in the equations, but verbally it seems circular. 76.175.72.51 (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular Definitions 

message: I took out this table as potentially misleading.  A form of energy doesn't have a magnitude.  I guess it could be called  "magnitudes of coefficients of equations for energy", but that doesn't seem like a meaningful or useful comparison.  We already have the article Orders of magnitude (energy). --Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Took out table "Magnitude comparison of different forms of energy" 

message: This article begins In physics, energy is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force.  On 21 April 2009 User:Wisnuops (talk) added the following comment:
(note: this is not the best definition. The word work is also defined by referring to energy. It creates a circular definition).
I have deleted the note from the article and transferred it here.  It may stimulate debate.  Dolphin51 (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that electromagnetic energy includes visible light.  Dolphin51 (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: This sentence from the intro: 
:  "Different forms of energy include kinetic, potential, thermal, gravitational, sound, light, elastic, and electromagnetic energy."
is, in my opinion, poorly worded - even if it is technically true that each of those words can describe some form of energy. Kinetic and potential are a totally separate categorization of energy - in its current shape, the sentence can easily convince someone that thermal is something completely different from kinetic. Or, taken with the next sentence The forms of energy are often named after a related force., it could be taken to suggest that some sort of a "kinetic force" exists. 
I suggest we remove the 'kinetic' and 'potential' words from that particular sentence - if we want to have a reference to them in the intro, we can add a sentence along the lines of 'Energy is often split into kinetic and potential' Ivancho.was.here (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing list of forms 

message: I suggest that semantically, the word energy can have a purely abstract non-physical meaning, as "something that moves" (something else or itself), in any kind of reference system.
For example, one could say that there are "energies" in the psyche, in the sense that there are psychological motives or mechanisms that activate/move the psyche in a certain direction, or which inhibit and block certain other tendencies in the psyche.
There is no reason why the notion of energy should be the exclusive property of physical sciences.
The purely abstract use of that word in any kind of reference system is perfectly legitimate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.149.242 (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Dictionaries don't like it when you attach a nonrational meaning to a word. So if you don't know the rational connotation of a word like Energy why would you use it in an attempt to communicate? Therefor when you say that the psyche has energies, you are making a misstatement, because the connotation of Energy is that it is the result of something rather than the cause of something.WFPM (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

text: The top of the page reads This article is about the scalar physical quantity. For other uses, see Energy (disambiguation). What else do you want? ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 16:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

text: No, I was answering the OP. (Anyway I would not be surprised if the non-physical meaning of energy was actually older than the physical one, as is the case for power and speed. That's irrelevant to which is the primary meaning today, anyway.) ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 19:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can "Energy" have a purely abstract, non-physical meaning? 

message: Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: --Oneiros (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automate archiving? 

message: What is energy?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.199.177 (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't doubt the accuracy of what you have written.  What is required in this Wikipedia article, and certainly in the lede section of the article, is an explanation that a teenager with a genuine interest in finding some answers will find meaningful.  Developing an explanation that is meaningful to the general English-speaking public is usually more difficult than developing a thoroughly rigorous explanation that is meaningful to a College professor. Dolphin (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy 

message: Energy is of course a scalar quantity in classical (non-relativistic physics); but it special relativity it is the time-component of the momentum four-vector and obviousley not a scalar. I think the opening lines of the article should be corrected this way: " in non-relativistic physics, energy is a scalar quanity". We then need to say, somewhere else that in relativity energy is only a component of a vector This is directly related to the celeberated E=mc^2. 
95.82.51.176 (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, TIME is a scalar quantity in classical physics, but can be regarded as a vector (or vector-space) in relativity. So what? It is of no help in understanding the nature of time, except to remind us that when the spacial quantities increase, the time-like thing decreases. If we want to use energy and momentum to calculate anything in relativity, such as the scalar invariant mass, we strip them of their vector properties and use the Minkowski norm, or 4-vector length. Here energy and net momentum subtract from each other as squares, followed by a root, just as would happen for the length of the vector connecting two perpendicular vectors. But the answer is not a vector. SBHarris 01:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy is not a scalar in special relativity 

message: :"When oil, which contains high-energy bonds, is burned, the useful potential energy in the oil is converted into thermal energy, which can no longer be used to perform work (e.g., power a machine) and is lost. Although the thermal energy may not be a useful form of energy, the total energy has remained the same."
Converting chemical energy to thermal energy is exactly what does produce the work. For instance in an internal combustion engine it is the thermal energy that causes the gases to expand and move the pistons. Also in a thermoelectric system it is the thermal energy that gets converted into electrical energy. Only where there is very low grade heat energy, not much higher in temperature relative to its surroundings, is thermal energy no longer able to perform work. --CharlesC (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's wrong. Some of the thermal energy can be converted to other kinds of energy, and the rest cannot, according to the second law of thermodynamics. If it's never converted to thermal energy in the first place (as in a fuel cell) you don't have to deal with this problem, and efficiencies can be far higher (in theory, 100% if you never produce any heat). Also, there is no such thing as a "high energy bond", in a sense of a bond that gives energy when broken. That idea is a corruption of (bad) language which has crept in from biochemistry (you can see me fulminating about it on the ATP talk page, in fact). The "energy" is not in gasoline or its bonds, but in the gasoline-oxygen system. It results from making bonds more powerful in H2O and CO2, than those that are broken in the gasoline and oxygen. I'll see what I can do with the second paragraph. SBHarris 19:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the word "heat" should cease from being referred to as a form of energy. Heat is not a form of energy, it is the transfer of thermal energy. Thermal energy is a form of energy, but heat is not. Not only does this apply to this discussion, but also to the article itself, where the definition in the context of physics is not used. Pancakeface2 (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, you're technically correct, but even chemists and physicists loosely continue to refer to thermal energy as "heat." As in the "heat-death of the universe". They really mean the thermal energy death of the universe. SBHarris 20:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example in second paragraph seems to be inaccurate 

message: The formila in Gravitational energy section should be:
E = -G*m1*m2/r^2
92.247.247.23 (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is the formula for gravitational force. Integrating to get energy gives you a different dependence on r. Not surprisingly, energy is this force multiplied by r, a distance, so it comes out E = 2GmM/r. SBHarris 17:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in gravity formula. 

message: The current page starts with:
In physics, energy (from the Greek  - energeia, "activity, operation", from  - energos, "active, working") is a quantity that can be assigned to every particle, object, and system of objects as a consequence of the state of that particle, object or system of objects.
I suggest the following change:
In physics, energy (from the Greek  - energeia, "activity, operation", from  - energos, "active, working") is a scalar dimensional quantity that can be assigned to every particle, object, and system of objects as a consequence of the state of that particle, object or system of objects. Its dimension is M L2T -2.
141.155.107.173 (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: That's useful information, but I think that adding it to the lede makes the article seem considerably less accessible to the lay reader.  If the physicists reading this article agree that is an accurate change, it should go somewhere else in the article. Tim Pierce (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the lede, just at the end of the first paragraph rather than the start. This seems a better place for it to me. Algebraist 12:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "scalar dimensional" would lose many readers immediately if that were in the first sentance. David Hollman (Talk) 10:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 141.155.107.173, 8 June 2010 

message: Under the subheading Kinetic Energy:
Regarding the last expression for kinetic energy Ek=mc2((1-(v/c)2)-1-1)
For v=0 the given expression becomes Ek=0.  But the next line after this equation is:
A mathematical by-product of this work (which is immediately seen in the last equation) is that even at rest a mass has the amount of energy equal to:
Erest = mc2
Though not incorrect readers will expect the expression for  Ek to become Ek=mc2 for v=0.  Maybe an intermediate expression using a symbol for rest mass is needed.
--Phononcondensate (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've fixed it a bit. The reader needs to know that the two right hand side terms are total and rest energy, so that when the left hand side is zero (v = Ek = 0), the right hand side terms are equal, and thus total energy = rest energy = mc^2. SBHarris 18:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  rest energy expression 

message: A number of physical concepts and quantities do not have "universally valid" or "generally agreed" definitions (possibly none at all), after they are analyzed to "the ultimate depth". However, this understanding comes only after a systematic and thourough study of the subject, which begun with some simplified, or limited, or particular definitions. Amateur opinions on impefection of definitions, which are not based on serious study and understanding of the problem, disregard the fact that these "imperfect" concepts have lead to great cognitive advances and technological developments in recent centuries.
It therefore seems rather unreasonable to limit the article on energy to roundabout statements that it "is a quantity that can be assigned to every particle, object, and system of objects as a consequence of the state of that particle, object or system of objects. Different forms of energy include... etc". Even if the same could not be said about some other quantities, it hardly helps a lay person to get any clue on "what this energy thing is about".
Therefore, I dare suggest that some simplified highschool definition should be inserted somewhere at the beginning of the article (such as "the ability of an object to do some work; it has so much energy as much work it can do"), preferably somewhat better worded. Of course, together with a note that this is not the "general" definition. And then you can proceede with other details and explanations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.201.201.125 (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that the first whack start by defining energy as a differential quantity which is conserved in isolated systems over time. That allows us to avoid having to define its absolute value in systems (since in conservation we are only interested in how the value changes, not what it IS). We can then name a few types of equivalent energy that can add or substract energy from systems, by their moving into and out of such systems (kinetic energy, heat, light, mass, etc). Then we can note that in classical mechanics and special relativity, the absolute value of energy in a closed and isolated system depends on our reference frame (event though this differing value is conserved in all frames), and also has several different definitions in various theories of relativity, all of them connected with some type of mass. We can note that in special relativity, in frames where a system has zero momentum, theoretically all of its energy can be converted to work, so long as we can satisfy the second law of thermodynamics. And finally that in some systems where space-time is expanding, energy is not conserved, unless certain types of gravitational potential are considered to represent negative energy. Is that the kind of thing you have in mind? SBHarris 01:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes. The work should be there. Just saying it is a quantity of some sort or the theoretical aspects of the 'quantity' don't just cut it (for me) especially when it is something (almost) tangible. I did change it. Now it states that it is often understood as capasity to perform work (physics). I think that should convey the gist of it. Feel free to comment (or change). --Samoojas (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the definition is not completely general. This definition states that "energy is the capacity to perfom work". Work is one the ways by which energy is transferred and, therefore, produces changes in the system receiving the energy through the work performed. If we are going to define it that way, we should include all the other ways to produce those changes (other ways to transfer energy). So it should read "the capacity to produce changes on other systems". Energy not only produces changes via work but also through heat and mass transfer. In the first two cases, there is no net transfer of matter. In the last case, matter is transferred and, therefore, all the forms of energy associated to an amount of matter are transferred with it. I am going to change the definition to extend it. It will be still simple but more general.George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Take care you don't confuse matter (poorly defined and not conserved) with mass (better defined and conserved, and basically equivalent to energy). Energy CAN be transferred into and out of systems without transferring matter (defined as fermions), but energy can never be transferred without transferring the MASS it is associated with (which is a property of BOTH fermions and bosons, at least in closed systems where space time is not expanding). Thermal energy and radiation are not matter, but both of them do have mass. "Work," like "heat" is defined only as some kind of energy in motion across a boundary. Both work and heat add "mass" to whatever they act on, according to how much heat is transferred, or work is done. SBHarris 02:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

text: The article DOES start with Newtonian mechanics! Second sentence: In physics, energy (Ancient Greek: ἐνέργεια energeia "activity, operation"[1]) is a quantity that is often understood as the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems.[2][3] Since work is defined as a force acting through a distance (a length of space), energy is always equivalent to the ability to exert pulls or pushes against the basic forces of nature, along a path of a certain length.
SBHarris 23:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Give a simplified (limited) definition of energy - rather than none