Talk:Spark

message: This WikiProject coverage only applies to the entry for Sparks in Transformers.  Please move the WP tag to a separate article if one is ever made.  --Geopgeop 12:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006

message: The word 'spark'  means a bit more than fire and electrical references (which aren't exactly mentioned, either). Metaphorically, sparks can refer to the beginnings of things, like ideas or even (poetically) life. I believe that that is important for Wikipedia to include, as a lot of Wikipedia is dedicated to defining purely cultural meanings, which are more than valid definitions. Yes, one could look that up on Wiktionary, but I think more that the pure definition is necessary, although I believe someone should look into incorperating what is there, as it does include these meanings. Err, I hope you get the idea. I don't think I'm explaining very well. I'll watch this page and try to explain better if necessary (or edit it myself when I'm feeling a bit more intelligible). Garnet avi (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural connotation? 

message: I don't think that the spark across a switch breaking an inductive circuit (e.g. motor) is necessarily corona? Theory says categorically that the current through an inductor can't change instantaneously, so presumably if you switch off a motor in a vacuum you get a spark; it's not corona as there's nothing to ionise. Nor is it electrostatic. So this sort of spark is neither corona nor ES discharge.Pol098 (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please clarify?  Thanks. Bwrs (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd written a response here, but it didn't properly address a spark in vacuum so I'll withdraw what I wrote and point you to http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/physics/PHY102.HTM. Basically current can flow in a vacuum, but doesn't form a visible spark, unless vaporised metal fragments are involved. Some sort of visible sparking is found to occur in a high vacuum, but is thought to be due to remaining particles (cause not reliably known). So what I write in 2008 may not be right; a visible spark requires a physical medium, although an invisible current is possible. I don't know if your question implied that you thought that what I'd written didn't add up; if it did, I think you were right! Pol098 (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inductive 

message: Someone needs to make an entry for the Spark XMPP client.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.174.108 (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: IM Client

message: The metaphorical meaning of spark can include an idea of emotional excitement.  For example, speaking of the girl I eventually married, "She was one of my students for a whole year, but there were no sparks between us until ten years later!" Baabbiyahya (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural connotation 

message: It is well known that flints create sparks when struck together. I used to think that this had something to do with a reaction involving oxygen in the air.  However my son demonstrated to me that flints can produce sparks when struck underwater - where the oxygen level is certainly much lower!  The explanations above do not seen to explain the reason for the spark.  Can anyone explain this?   Baabbiyahya (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the initial heat source can come from a variety of sources: friction, strong mechanical impact, oxidation or other chemical reaction, electrical energy.  Further oxidation of the small particle in air is commonly involved.  But some metals will burn in water or CO2, displacing the H or C, and combining with the O; these can produce glowing sparks.  For flints in air, I think further oxidation of mechanically heated metal particles is involved, and conceivably even under water.  Wwheaton (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:   Sparks from striking flints 

message: A wikilink from this page, to Spark (fire) (as of this writing) has been proposed to be renamed, and (mostly due to some confusion between the thermochemical and electrical varieties) the discussion has spilled over into this Spark disambiguation page.  I am copying my latest proposal here, as it affects the organization of this page somewhat, and thus the other meanings, and possibly other editors.  See Talk:Spark (fire)#Requested move -- March 2011 for the whole context.
So I think we have to first consider the higher-level page, to resolve this confusion.  IMHO, we must leave spark as a disambig page (because of all those other meanings). We might reorganize that page a bit, of course.  I would have one main section there, with two equal subordinate subsections: one for the electrical concept, and one for the "fire" or thermal/chemical one.  I think these two are of roughly equal importance in everyday use.  (We can argue about which subsection should come first.   :)  )   The electrical branch really does have a bunch of third-level sub-branches: electrostatic, inductive, ... etc, as I listed above [ie, in Talk:Spark (fire) ].  I think we should list some of them, but probably not all (with links to the others in the appropriate branches, to be sure.)  
The mathematical sense, the butterfly, and the sled I would move out of that section, into some "Other" (or whatever, possibly more than one) co-ordinate section, without too much violence to what we have previously had, in the sense that someone coming in with just "spark" will see them all laid out, but with the electrical & thermal guys near the top.
Then we can come back here and figure out a better name for "spark (fire)", whatever we want.  The formal proposed move would still be up for discussion, but focused just on the fire/thermal/chemical species.  I have no very strong opinion, only think it should be immediately clear to anyone coming to it via the spark disambig page where they want to go.  Of course, we are also free to have any redirects that we think are likely to be useful, to go directly wherever. 
Wwheaton (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some more work - have split the two "literal" senses out into first section, the rest following. PamD (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Splendid, thanks.  I asked (on the Talk:Spark (fire) page) for someone who has convenient access to the OED to look up "spark", to settle its original meaning.  I think the glowing particle meaning(s) ought to be primary, and all the others are derivative, but we should document that for this disambig page. I agree that it is only a relatively minor issue here.  Wwheaton (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks PamD for cleaning up the page! The glowing particle definition comes before the electric definition in Wictionary  and other sources, so that seems appropriate here. As far as when sparks were discovered, Thales of Miletus appears to have observed sparks by rubbing amber with a cloth around 600 BC.  --Kkmurray (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 2011: move discussion in [[Spark (fire)]]