Talk:Electron cyclotron resonance

message: Should this article be classified as a stub?    I've worked on Fermi surface and effective mass and haven't really thought through which material should be in which article.     Obviously each article should be self-contained although we'd like them to avoid unnecessary repetition.    Is electron cyclotron resonance still too short?   If "Landau level," "Shubnikov-de Haas" and "de Haas-van Alphen" all existed, we'd have a pretty good collection of articles on this general topic. Alison Chaiken 19:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks ok to de-stub it to me, though if you want second opinions, maybe add this page to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Physics. It could still use fleshing out; in particular, you might want to add a couple of equations showing how the derivation is performed (equating lorentz force and centripetal force), and a brief explanation of why Fermi surface is related to cyclotron resonance, but even as-is it looks decent. --Christopher Thomas 19:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is a curious mixture of plasma physics and solid state physics. The first word of the article is plasma, but effective mass and Landau levels are concepts not used in plasma physics. I can help assure that the plasma physics remains correct, but I don't know anything about the significance and application of ECR in solid state physics. --Art Carlson 20:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reformatted the article to separate the plasma and condensed-matter content.    This makes the plasma-specific content look a bit skimpy but should be less confusing to the neophyte.    Most of the condensed-matter content on this topic is actually in effective mass and Fermi surface. Alison Chaiken 22:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an improvement. I'll try to flesh out the plasma physics. --Art Carlson 13:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Actually I think it's a good idea to write formulas in SI units. Is there a general solution in Wikipedia to the question of what units to use, or at least to make clear which set apply to a given formula? --Art Carlson 08:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the change was valid, go ahead and reinsert it. That IP just had at least one instance of subtly mangling data, and I wasn't in a position to determine if the edit to this article was valid or not. Some mention of units should probably be added anyways. --Christopher Thomas 17:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits by 129.93.123.197 

message: I think a section on ECR ion source needs to be in a sub-section on its own. I will try to add something.Scaler1112 10:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ECR Ion Sources

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Electron cyclotron resonance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090920064757/http://mgm.mit.edu/historic/i1101.pdf to http://mgm.mit.edu/historic/i1101.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)