Talk:Calorimeter

message: Calorimeters in particle physics (as particle detectors) are completely missing from this page.
Any ideas how to include them? The content is potentially at least as big as calorimeters in chemistry.
Maybe a disambiguation page should be created pointing to 'calorimeters in chemistry' and 'calorimeters
in physics'
gbrandt 14:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah and what about calorimotors used in exercise physiology experiments?  They measure the calories burned in exercise or when a person is resting, and are obviously large enough to fit a person.  andphoto of room size calorimeter. I saw one report that noted their accuracy is about +/- 4%, which is apparently good enough for their use. - Taxman 18:37, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with all other xxx calorimeter-type articles done. --Phils 20:13, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calorimeters in particle physics 

message: In the first section of this article, this sentence makes no sense: "In addition, the object placed inside the calorimeter show that the objects transferred their heat to the calorimeter and into the liquid, and the heat absorbed by the calorimeter and the liquid is equal to the heat given off by the metals."  I would try to correct it but I don't know what the intent of the original author was.  In addition to what?  The object is showing?  Are the metals referred to being reacted together or are they part of the calorimeter?  And there are grammar problems too.  Can anybody improve this?JDHeinzmann (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback 

message: Hey, I don't know if anyone else here watches Mythbusters, but this page was just briefly featured in the most recent episode!  Congratulations, you're famous! (lol) --KPWM_Spotter 01:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mythbusters

message: Folks, can we please stop putting mention of the MythBusters appearance in the actual article?  This is, after all, an article about calorimeters—not an article about the Wikipedia article on calorimeters.  I can certainly understand that fans of the show are excited and want to bring attention to Grant's viewing of this article; I know I was happy to see Wikipedia getting even a few seconds of visibility on one of my favorite television shows (though it would have been nice if we were mentioned by name and/or if something more distinguishing like the logo were shown).  Nonetheless, there's no good reason for an encyclopedia article on calorimeters to point out that one episode of a television show happened to show a few seconds of someone researching calorimeters using a particular online resource.  So, let's leave such meta discussion of the MythBusters connection to this talk page, and keep the encyclopedia article encyclopedic and free of self-references, okay?  — Jeff | (talk) | 06:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Avoid self-references

message: I removed the statement "This shows that the matter can be neither created nor destroyed." from the main page.  We should be able to take basic principles of physics for granted, rather than having to use this particular technology to reinvent them.
We have much more accurate ways of approaching those underlying issues.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.54.131.7 (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We do not need to prove basic physics here 

message: Virtually all of the page is about "types", so it's one heading and a lot of sub-headings, which makes it harder to see the difference between a new sub-heading and a new sub-sub-heading (just slight changes in font size).  May I suggest removing "Types" and promoting all the headings 1.1 thruogh to 1.9, so we have headings 1 to 9 (with their natural line break) as different calorimeters (with 2.1 to 2.4 as the different reaction calorimeters), followed by 10 for "refs" and 11 for "see also" Ronhjones (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No one replied.  I shall be "Bold"... Ronhjones (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need the heading "Types" 

message: These pages are not good. They miss a lot of calorimeters and do not mention some quite common types of calorimeters. Clearly a disamb. page would be good, but it is difficult to structure such a page as there is no internationally approved standard nomenclature in this field (possibly except for DSC). For example can all these mean the same instrument: Isothermal calorimeter, heat conduction calorimeter, heat loss calorimeter, isoperibol calorimeter and microcalorimeter. However, a disamb. page dividing the calorimeters into 1. Particle physics detectors. 2. Heat measurement devices. 3. Indirect calorimeters could be used. Under heat measurement devices (which I work with), I would suggest a division into A. Temperature scanning calorimeters. B. Isothermal calorimeters. C. Adiabatic calorimeters. D. Semi-adiabatic calorimeters. This division is based what conditions the sample is exposed to, not on how this is achieved. It is not a division totally free of problems, but it is based easily understandable words (at least for people with a knowledge in chemistry/physics; the terms could also be translated into non-scientific language; isothermal calorimeter = constant temperature calorimeter). LarsWads (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also suggest adding E. Flow Calorimetry ( Heat = flow * (Tout-Tin) ) : please ping me on my talk page. Alanf777 (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is need for substantial improvements to Calorimetry and Calorimeter 

message: Would anyone be interested in reformatting the equations under "Bomb calorimeters"to be in math formatting?74.131.133.12 (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math Formatting? 

message: There should be a  labelled diagram of calorimeter Iqra muhammad (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: — Assignment last updated by ChemWorx (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Big Ideas in Chemistry