Talk:Maximum power principle

message: :::I have submitted this page to C.A.S.Hall, who has given a first report back that it "looks ok". If it is original research, it is only original in the clarity of exposition of the principle. I have not seen any treatments that give both a table and graph of the data in the ecological literature, however it is implied in Costanza's work in Introduction to ecological economics. The Jackson text gives the details in reference to electronic circuits, and I have borrowed from Jackson's exposition with appropriate citation. Sholto Maud 23:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

message: The edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maximum_power_principle&diff=403281560&oldid=401890093 introduced some hard to parse language in it's first paragraph.  Can someone who can parse it correct it? 
Also, the maximum empower link goes to embedded energy, which no longer discusses it.  Can we have more context for the empower quote perhaps?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4CA0:2001:42:225:90FF:FE6B:D60 (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: "The preceding discussion is incomplete"

message: The idea in the article sounds philosophical at best, crank science at worst. Its application to sociology/evolutionary theory may perhaps be valid. But please, leave physics out of it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.43.162 (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fourth law of thermodynamics? Seriously, WTF..

message: Can anyone give any evidence that there is an Alfred Noble prize? --DrTorstenHenning 09:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should have guessed that it is already on WP ... Still, I could not find evidence that this particular individual was awarded the prize. Can anyone knowledgeable perhaps add the year? --DrTorstenHenning 14:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * "While serving with the Air Force during World War II, Dr. Tribus developed thermal ice protection equipment for aircraft. For his accomplishments in this field he recieved the Thurman H. Bane Award from the Institute of Aero-Space Sciences and the Wright Brother's Medal from the Society of Automotive Engineers. He was also given the Alfred Noble Prize as a joint awared from seven societies" (Back dust cover, M. Tribus, 1961, Thermodynamics and Thermostatics: An Introduction to Energy, Information and States of Matter, with Engineering Applications, D. Van Nostrand Company Inc., 24 West 40 Street, New York 18, New York, U.S.A.) Sholto Maud 23:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alfred Noble? <del>Hoax?</del>

message: I think this article would be better named Maximum power principle and a redirect page pointing to both Max Power theorem and Max Power principle added. --Pfafrich 23:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to max power principle 

message: And why should "Wiki researchers" be interested in mashing established theorems with non-established principles? I think this page should become a simple redirect page to the maximum power theorem and to the maximum power principle. Any "formal analogies" can be treated separately once the latter has been defined properly. --DrTorstenHenning 12:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you could classify Wiki users into those that read (Wiki reader), those that contribute (Wiki editor), and those that do further research in order to contribute (Wiki researchers). In order to provide a proper definition of maximum power "principle" one needs to establish why the "maximum power theorem" has the status of a "theorem", and further, when the definition of such a theorem can or cannot be applied to systems other than electronics. There is also, therefore, a need to properly define the distinctions between "laws" (i.e. thermodynamics etc.), "theorems" (i.e. electronics & mathematical logic) and "principles" (i.e. energetics & ecology); where does a theorem begin and a law end? As it stands, the notion of "maximum power theorem" is a logically improper use of the term "theorem" - unless one assumes some kind of "formal ontology". "Wiki researchers" might be interested in clarifying such things, and, for example, why the entry on mathematical physics has no mention of the role and development of theorems. Sholto Maud 22:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a ''Wiki researcher''? 

message: I have removed the Pseudoscience categorisation. This is because the collaborator who posted the categorisation has gone on to say,
"Seems I may be wrong on Odum. My research did not find substantial reason to apply the label. Always happy to be corrected... Mccready 12:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscience categorisation

message: I added the NPOV tag because significant criticisms of the principle and of the entire field that produced it are not reported in the article. See Talk:Emergy#Neutrality. Flying Jazz Flying Jazz (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV