Talk:Emission spectrum

message: Am I supposed to see [hyper]fine gaps in these spectra, or are those interpixel artefacts?? lysdexia 23:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hydrogen spectral series or Bohr model may be able to help. OrangeDog (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Seems like a good idea to me - Atomic Emission Spectrum mostly duplicates material in Emission spectrum ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: definitely dump any extra bits from here into the atomic emission article, this article (I think) should be about molecular emission spectra - flouresence, phosphorescence etc  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.12 (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, merge to Atomic emission spectrum, and make Emission spectrum a disambig to that and Molecular radiation (and possibly Hydrogen spectral series. I've also just noticed Atomic spectral line, which may need merging or something else. OrangeDog (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

text: There's also an Emission spectrum (fluorescence spectroscopy). This topic is a bit of a mess. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget Atomic emission spectroscopy, Fluorescence spectroscopy, Electromagnetic spectroscopy, Emission (electromagnetic radiation), Spectrum analysis, etc. Lots of room for cleanup; merging redundant articles is a good start. --Kkmurray (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the proposed merger - it looks like it was first proposed over a year ago!  As a first step, I would suggest merging both Atomic emission spectrum and Molecular radiation into Emission spectrum.  (The article can cover things which apply both to atomic and molecular emission.)  Most of the other articles are either more detail about particular sub-topics, or about the practicalities of measuring spectra, so could be included as links while keeping this article at quite a simple level.  Djr32 (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger of [[Atomic Emission Spectrum]] into [[Emission spectrum]]

message: It is highly misleading to call the absorption spectra the "inverse" of the emission spectra. In many mathematical applications the inverse is 1/x, which is certainly not the case with absorption and emission spectra. It would be more appropriate to call this the "Mirror-Image Rule" as it is termed in Principles of Fluorescence Spectroscopy by JR Lakowicz page 7 (yes, it's that early in the book). However it should be noted that the mirror-image rule is much more of a guideline than a rule. The absorption and emission spectra can differ for a large number of reasons, many of which are listed (with examples) in the Lakowicz text. Some examples are proton dissociation and the formation of charge-transfer complexes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.196.176 (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absorption Spectra 

message: This article is highly geared towards atomic emission spectra. I think there should be a section added that discusses the types of emission, as noted in another comment: atomic, fluorescence, phosphorescence and any others I'm not thinking of right now. We should also consider adding various factors that can affect measuring the emission spectrum (mostly for fluorescence). Discussion should be given about technical emission spectra. A great starting point for this would be NBS 260-64, a document describing Standard Reference Material (SRM) 936 - Quinine Sulfate Dihydrate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwagers (talk • contribs) 02:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of emission 

message: It seems very strange that the 'Emission' section (and subject) is a subset of the 'Emission spectrum' page.  Shouldn't these be reversed?  (Make 'emission spectrum' a section of an 'emission' article) All Clues Key (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page organization 

message: This section, as I found it, was a mishmash of two or three notions of "energy spectrum" with a fumbled attempt in the first paragraph at some kind of general thing they have in common.
It's still pretty bad, even after I dropped the most distracting parts, namely (1) the repetition here of the standard definition of the "spectrum" of the Hamiltonian operator in quantum mechanics (a different beast than an observed distribution of energies) (2) the relation E=hω from quantum mechanics (which was tossed out, but never used). 
I would recommend tightening up the phraseology of the first paragraph to focus on whatever specific kind of power spectrum or energy spectrum is really intended  in the current article -- perhaps a power spectrum of electromagnetic radiation as a function of wavelength, like with black body radiation? -- so that this section fits in with the rest of the article. 
I left the example of sea waves, but it seems sort of detached from what's interesting in the context of this article. 178.38.183.80 (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for drawing attention to this section. Because its topic has no particular significance for an Emission Spectrum, I have removed it. ronningt (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section called "Energy spectrum" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Emission spectrum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061110112125/http://student.fizika.org/~nnctc/spectra.htm to http://student.fizika.org/~nnctc/spectra.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Emission spectrum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120193438/http://www.doctortang.com/AP%20Chemistry/Lab%2004%20Quantitative%20Spectroscopy%20of%20Hydrogen%20Emission%20Spectrum.pdf to http://www.doctortang.com/AP%20Chemistry/Lab%2004%20Quantitative%20Spectroscopy%20of%20Hydrogen%20Emission%20Spectrum.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The Schematic diagram of spontaneous emission use h bar and ν which generally represents frecuency, instead it should use either ω for the angular frecuency or switch to h and keep de ν  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LULZ308 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schematic diagram of spontaneous emission