Talk:Field electron emission

message: ...were added in this edit. The editor was User:Jkoepke, who hasn't contributed in the last 8 months. He's been asked for the references on his talk page, and I just asked again. --Steve (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bracketed references that aren't given 

message: Yes, I agree that the material on the Fowler-Nordheim Equation page should be incorporated into this page on field emission - the equation appears here as well, although in a slightly more basic context (RGForbes (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably be better to turn the page Fowler–Nordheim equation into a "Redirect" to this page. Then when someone clicks a link to that page they end up here instead. Just like Meter is a redirect to Metre. --Steve (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This has now been done, though not by me. (RGForbes (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with page on Fowler-Nordheim Equation 

message: My view is that the material in the sections currently headed "Theory of field emission from metals" and "Extending the field emission theory from metals" is certainly is too mathematical, too specialist, and not sufficiently explained.  It's also not 100% correct, and presented in a fashion that is not 100% compatible with the international scientific conventions introduced in the 1970s.  I plan to replace this material when I can find time,  I would be interested to hear views on whether the the material in the earlier two sections is considered too technical: it's aimed at late-stage undergraduates and starting research students - on the grounds that nowadays Wikipedia is a place that students look for information.  More generally, there seems to be a problem in that one needs to provide information at two levels - at a non-technical level suitable for the complete non-specialist, and at a "beginning technical"  level suitable for the "beginning specialist" who can be expected to already have some basic understanding of  the relevant underlying science. Personally, I am happy for Wikipedia to have both roles, but I am not clear about how to best make them fit together. Comments appreciated. (RGForbes (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   Is this page too technical ?  

message: The main page has the look and feel of something that may have been copied from a text book. Has anyone checked if the content was plagiarized, and whether it complies with Wikipedia copyright policy? DFH (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks and feels plaigiarized because (1) it appears to be written by an expert, and (2) it has stylistic attributes that don't conform well to the usual wikipedia article. There's a simple explanation! It was written over the past few weeks by , who (1) is an expert, and (2) hasn't edited wikipedia much before now. If you look through the edit history, you'll see ample evidence of that. :-) --Steve (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve is dead right, on all points.  I would add, however, that you won't find a textbook out there that covers this material in this way. This might be regarded as a deficiency in the scientific literature of this subject area. Part of the point of revising the existing article on field emission was to see if this is a better way (better than writing a new conventional textbook, or some sort of tutorial review article) of getting the information in the second part of the revised article out to people whom you might describe as "beginning technical specialists". It certainly can be made to happen quicker. (RGForbes (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is most of the main article plagiarized? 

message: The tone of this article, since expansion is somewhat different from what an encyclopedia article should be like, and the reference style is not what Wikipedia usually uses, so this article needs cleanup. A "Further reading" section should be cleanly separated from sources, citations and other references. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is a disaster. Feel free to go for it.  --KP Botany (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Separate "Further reading" section created (RGForbes (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a link to a tool for making citations that I have found very useful.  For more more info on citations for Wikipedia, see WP:CITE.  (The comment regarding "disaster" is an  imprudent and unhelpful remark.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: This topic was classified by the people who wrote earlier versions as a "quantum mechanics" article. But someone has now suggested that that it could also be classified as an "Electronics" article.
I think the underlying problem is that this topic does not fall easily into existing categories, because it has a "technical physics/applied physics" flavour about it, and covers both theory and applications of a specific effect.  Does Wikipedia need a separate category (probably a physics category) for topics of this kind ?  There are other topics of the same general kind, for example "vacuum breakdown", "discharge physics", "lightning protection". (RGForbes (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks more like physics to me. You can also discuss these questions at WT:WikiProject Physics where there's more traffic. I'd suggest WT:WikiProject Electronics too but there's not much discussion there, although if you post something, it might attract editors. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this an "electronics" article ? 

message: On June 15, 2009, I made a desperate attempt to clean up the query "Field electron emission." 
This was indeed recommended by the editors in March 2009 because the query is too long and is written in substandard language. In particular, I tried to change its clumsy title to a more agreeable "Field Emission", but also to excise unnecessary information and standardize the terminology. Instead of thanks I was accused of vandalism and my changes were mostly canceled
or left in the intermediate stage of editing. Please, review all consequent changes and realize that I seriously worked to improve the query.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Komsomolka (talk • contribs) 02:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I already explained on your talk page that I misinterpreted your strange edit of the Field emission redirect as vandalism, and that if you want to move the article you should propose that here.  None of your other changes were undone, except that I removed the first heading, as the standard format is to not have a heading before the lead section. Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  My attempt to clean up the page  

message: Hi, I was reading up on read-only memory and I was directed to this page by the EEPROM page. I saw no mention of Fowler–Nordheim tunneling being used as a type of method to write/erase memory. If you guys don't mind, I would like to add an engineering section mentioning the practical uses of field electron emission for anyone else that is curious about it or wanted to learn more. I am still learning myself, but I think it would be useful/interesting for anyone that resides in the electronics field. Here is the link to the article I was directed from. I understand that this is already a lengthy article, so I will drop by later when I can to do some clean up. I will remove any information that I feel doesn't pertain to FEE. Feel free to write me if you guys disagree with any of the edits. I just kind of had to tread through a mile of text to find no information relating to what I was searching for.Ironstove (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wondering if we should add an EEPROM section?  

message: From the first paragraph - "FE can take place from solid or liquid surfaces, into vacuum, air, a fluid, or any non-conducting or weakly conducting dielectric." - Why is it important to have a non-conducting media for the emission of electrons?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetalGeek71 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Field electron emission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071113184640/http://isdeiv.lbl.gov:80/MillerBiblio/WBib2000Txt.htm to http://isdeiv.lbl.gov/MillerBiblio/WBib2000Txt.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified