Talk:TEA laser

message: Isn't this just a type of nitrogen laser, at atmospheric pressure? Is there any reason not to merge with with the nitrogen laser article (though both need cleaning up, first)? In particular, TEA is really just an excitation geometry, not a disctinct name for the laser - there are TEA CO2 lasers, for instance. --Bob Mellish 16:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific notability/merger 

message: What do you think about convert the TEA Laser article into the new Nitrogen Laser article, and take some tech data from the oldest one?
I think the TEA article have more didactical quality
I think merging this into nitrogen laser would be a good idea. I don't like the fact that the article on TEA lasers doesn't mention TEA CO2 lasers, which are quite important.--Srleffler 06:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here is an Idea 

message: The acronym description is incorrect. TEA stands for "Transversely Excited Atmospheric" and it was coined in the early 1970s when we first started working on these types. 
Davec13o2 16:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your questions well enough to answer them, but take note of the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research. The only things that should be included in the article are things that can be found in published references elsewhere. If you do some new calculations or analysis, the results of that are not suitable for inclusion here unless they also appear in the literature.--Srleffler 18:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible error in description on this article 

message: This article is very sloppily written. Apart from the basic fact that the meaning of “TEA” is incorrectly stated – as already observed above – the scope and focus of the piece is entirely inappropriate, and there is no historical background. I propose to completely rewrite the article, but since my knowledge is somewhat out of date – I built TEA lasers in the early 1970s at Essex University in England – I invite other Wikipedians to comment and correct as they see fit. I would also welcome some encouragement in this: do other contributors/readers find this article as bad as I do? Peter Maggs (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely, I think it reads more like an argument at the moment. It only really makes sense if you already know the subject matter, which isn't a good way to be; I was hoping for enough background to be able to build one but I don't think that's likely now! Stonejag (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rewritten this article based on what I know. Whether or not the Nitrogen laser is a true TEA laser - in the sense that I understand the term - is a moot point. I invite others with more up to date knowledge than mine to clarify this point, perhaps expand the part on Excimer Lasers and ensure that the article measures up to the subject. Peter Maggs (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Rewrite

message: "Pearson and Lamberton used a streak-camera to verify the sequence of events. As the voltage erected across the electrodes, field emission from the..."
This looks like vandalism to me, but I am not familiar with engineering jargon, so I haven't edited the article. However, in my opinion, the verb should still be changed to "increased" or somesuch, even if some proffesionals do use the above expression, simply because "erected" would be perceived as informal or dirty to the majority of readers.82.137.34.99 (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the article. Talking about voltages "Erecting" is perfectly normal in pulse-power speak. Peter Maggs (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2008. Of course it has only just occurred to me that the post from 82.137.34.99 was a joke. If so, the joke's on me. Peter Maggs (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Subtle vandalism?

message: The development of this laser was examined by Harry Collins in "The TEA set: Tacit knowledge and Scientific Networks". Science studies 4, 1974 p165-186. A mention would be good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartse (talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 April 2009‎ (UTC)
:I added a brief section in the article on Collins’ work. Simulo (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sociology of scientific knowledge]] 

message: The linked page [Simple Homemade T.E.A. Laser] looks totally fraudulent to me. The author appears to just create a spark between two strips of metal that happen to direct the light along their length, then claims it's a laser. There isn't even a mirror. Can this link be deleted? Gareth.randall (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fraudulent external link?

message: Since the April 2008 revisions mentioned above, the article has lost
* the lead section
* the expansion of the acronym (it's buried in the 4th paragraph)
* a lot of the diagrams
* structure (it is now one large block of text)
Most critically, the tone has shifted significantly; there's a lot of focus on the history and not that much on the theory and operation. The March 2008 version is vastly superior to the current article. 115.166.3.252 (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the April 2008 rewrite - style & tone 

message: It is a pity that ‘115.166.3.252’, 14 September 2010 – which I have only just seen – comments anonymously. My criticism of the original article is even more reinforced having re-read the so-called ‘vastly superior’ March 2008 version. The writers of that version are clearly very knowledgeable about some parts of laser technology, but time and time again they mistake the specific for the general. Most TEA lasers just do not use the type of electrical excitation structure described, which seems to relate more to nitrogen lasers and experimental excimer lasers. The provision of nice coloured diagrams and lots of sections does not justify the presence of much material that is simply irrelevant.
I only replaced the existing article following a post on the talk page encouraging me to do so. Granted, the new article relates mainly to the historical evolution of TEA lasers, I make no apology for that because surely the topic demands to be put into a historical context in an encyclopaedia. In my various posts I have encouraged other Wikipedians to amend and add to my original rewrite, since my knowledge of the subject is at least 20 years old. It is a great pity that hardly anyone has done so.
I propose to remove the ‘inappropriate tone or style’ banner from the article, subject to the views of other Wikipedians who may care to comment. Peter Maggs (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The April 2008 Rewrite