Talk:Surface science

Untitled entry 2006-08-30

I honestly believe that surface physics deserves an entry of its own. For example, where do this such as surface reconstruction, Frenkel-Kontorova models, heteroepitaxy, etc. fit here? Javirl 10:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that those things should be written about and that they don't seem to fit under surface chemistry. That pretty much seems to leave either surface physics or surface science as the place to put them. It would be easy enough to change one of the redirects. I notice that neither of those pages has any discussion or editing history other than the redirects. Cardamon 11:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say epitaxy seems borderline to me - both physics and chemistry involved there. Might it be better to expand the surface physics subsection first, and then if it gets big enough, break it off into its own article?

CfD nomination of Category:Surface chemistry

Category:Surface chemistry has been nominated for renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Overhaul of Analysis techniques

The "Analysis techniques" section needs structure. Should the techniques be categorized by the nature of the technique (Spectroscopy, Scanning probe microscopy, etc.) or the information discovered from it (Crystallography, Surface chemistry, etc.)? Perhaps the most logical approach is to arrange by what is detected, i.e. "Electron measurements" (XPS, AES, ...), "X-ray measurements" (CTR, GISAXS, ...), "Optical measurements" (FTIR, SFG, ...), "Ion measurements" (SIMS, LEIS ...), "Scanning probe methods" (STM, AFM, ...). There is already mention of "physical" and "chemical" analysis techniques, but the distinction between these is not clear. Memcbr (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)