User talk:Afluegel

This user may have left Wikipedia. Afluegel has not edited Wikipedia since September 15, 2009. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives

Pre-2009

Joseph Chance

Thanks for letting me know.

I trust that you have kept the old Jospeh Chance article on file at this stage. I have a friend who knows quite a lot about the Chance brothers. He is getting boradband in about 2 weeks time, and will be looking at these articles as a project when he has registered himself as a contributor to Wikipedia. One of the things he told me is about Alexander Chance having bought Lightwoods Park for the borough. Being retired, he will have a lot more time than myself to devote to this, as well as having recently read up on the Chances. Long term, it may be better to drop the separate Joseph Chance article. But for now we shall see what my friend makes of it. Best wishes Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glass pre-project

Hello, Afluegel. You have new messages at Jdrewitt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Category of talk page

I have no idea how my talk page has ended up in those categories, it certainly isn't intentional. Some sort of bug I guess, I can't tell how to remove my talk page from those categories! I'll ask at the help desk...Polyamorph (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I fixed the problem, it was due to an incorrect usage of wikilinks. Thanks for spotting it! Polyamorph (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton and Bell

Since there is a category for British stained glass artists, I can't understand why you moved them out of it and into the general category of Glas art. Are you planning on getting rid of the more specific category? If not, then they belong in it. Amandajm (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it out of the category of british stained glass artists, because the article is about a company, not about a person. No, I certainly do not want to get rid of the category british stained glass artists, it contains many relevant articles about british artists. I still think, Clayton and Bell should not be mixed with artists (persons), as can be seen by the other articles in the category british stained glass artists. An alternative would be to create a new category within the category glassmaking companies such as "british art glass making companies". What do you think?--Afluegel (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All those people who gave their names to the companies were glass artists. Clayton and Bell; Heaton, Butler and Baynes; Lavers Barraud and Westlake; and so on. When you look at a Clayton and Bell window, then it's been designed by Clayton or Bell, or their friend and associate Baynes. It's virtually impossible to draw a line between the artists and the manufacturers, except in a few instances where we can say that such and such an artist worked for a number of firms and can be identified as the artist of some specific windows. It would not be appropriate to try to subdivide them into categories.

The name "British art glass making companies" is completely inappropriate to a stained glass firm. The words "glass art" might be loosely, or generally, or even popularly applied to stained glass, but historically and traditionally what they did was not called "glass art". It was called "stained glass".

The popular craft of leadlighting and copper foil work is referred to by people who do it as "glass art". Some people who do leadlighting and copperfoil work also like to call themselves "stained glass artists".

In the 19th and 20th century, leadlighters never called themselves "stained glass artists". They would have considered it pretentious. Every town had its own leadlighting firm. They specialised in domestic glass and shopfronts.

Big stained glass firms such as William Morris in England, Tiffany in the US, and Lyons and Cottier in Australia, often employed a range of people with different skills, including leadlighters, interior decorators, and people who specialised in painting grisaille motifs of birds and flowers on little roundels.

The term "glass art" is modern. I would not apply it to an old firm, because its connotations are positively tacky.
The term "Art Glass", on the other hand, is an historic term, and also has very little to do with the art of "stained glass" (as in "stained glass windows"). Art Glass is the product of artists who design glass artworks, often of useful form such as bowls, vases etc, but essentially one-off, or limited-edition creations. What Dale Chihuly produces is properly termed "Art Glass". What Rene Lalique made was "Art Glass". Some big commercial glass manufacturers such as Whitefriars have also produced "Art Glass".

Please don't lump the stained glass people together as either "art glass" makers or "glass art" makers. Let them remain as "stained glass artists".

One option is to extend the category and call them "British stained glass artists and manufacturers".

Amandajm (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your arguments are reasonable. If all right with you, I would like to go along with your last suggestion: extension of the category "British stained glass artists" to "British stained glass artists and manufacturers". In this way it becomes very clear to a layman like me that the category not only encompasses artist personalities, but also manufacturers. Besides Clayton and Bell, there are also other manufacturers in the category already.--Afluegel (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Afluegel, I think it's a good way to go, particularly because it then can encompass big operations like Hardmans along with an individual listing for an artist like Powell. Amandajm (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glass edits

Hey, although I am delighted editors such as Logger9 are taking an interest in the Glass article, I feel this is not in the article's best interest - it is far too long, entirely uncited, repeats information already given, is too technical, might even have some aspects of original research and in places is incorrect. Just a heads up to make sure this doesn't get out of control. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S I should probably have put this on the talk:Glass page, feel free to copy there if you think that more appropriate. Polyamorph (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for wantching out, and correcting the problems! I will read all the modifications within the coming days. --Afluegel (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I've been meaning to give you this for some time...

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your extensive efforts and contributions to the Glass article and related topics including setting up the Glass pre-project and taskforce. Polyamorph (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. The glass taskforce development page might still take a very long time to develop into a real taskforce, judging from the feedback, but for now it is still good to collect some information for later, or to point out a few problems.--Afluegel (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Logger9/Physics of the glass transition

As you can see, I have created another article -- this one focusing on the nature of the glass transition from a physicist's viewpoint.

Please let me know what you think -- and how you would recommend that I proceed. I am currently working on an appropriate Introduction for the article.

Hope all is well :-) -- logger9 (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working on this interesting topic! I will read the proposed article within the coming days.--Afluegel (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I read your proposed article. As already said, the topic itself is very interesting, thank you for working on it. However, as I am not a physicist (I am chemist), I do not understand yet the conclusion of the article. Maybe you could describe it somewhere in simple words, e.g., in the summary which is still missing? Otherwise I again posted a message on the discussion page of the WikiProject Physics because it would help you more if an expert gives you comments. Concerning formalities, you are getting some experience, I think. Just make sure it fits well in an encyclopedia. If you decide to create the article, put the {{underconstruction}} on top and align the content with the existing articles Glass-liquid transition and Glass transition temperature. -- Afluegel (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the green light! Please note my clear reference in the article to Wiki articles on Configurons and the Glass-liquid transition. -- logger9 (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to think about a summary. E.G. Please notice that I have readily incorporated the sum of the contents of the Glass-liquid transition into the newer article. With your permission, I would like to eliminate both previous nomenclatures, and rename the collective efforts of both simply: Glass transition. Please advise. -- logger9 (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the merging of articles I would like to suggest to place first a "merge to" template on the top of the appropriate pages and leave the template there for some weeks for other users to give their comments. If you proceed too fast, others might also fast do something with your work what you do not like. Just go stepwise. -- Afluegel (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha....Thanks ! -- logger9 (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted the suggested merger, and will monitor it over the next few weeks. Would you mind if I went ahead and changed the title of my page to the more brief and concise version ? The page "Glass transition" is already created, with a redirection to the "Glass-liquid transition" page. I will merely be using the name of a page which has nothing on it yet. -- logger9 (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the title of the article you need to think in advance: What would be the ideal situation? It is not a big problem at Wikipedia to create this ideal situation (I can tell you the procedure later), even if the title is already used by another article. So, what would be the best title, if you have a free choice?--Afluegel (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly (that's why I asked about it). In this case, I can think of no better -- or simpler -- title than the "Glass transition" ! [Goldstein & Simha, Eds. "The Glass Transition and the Nature of the Glassy State". Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. (1976)] -- logger9 (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the next step is to consider not only the article you are working on, but also the other one. "Glass transition" may also well refer to "Glass transition temperature", especially in my field of glass chemistry. Either you make a disambiguation page, or at least you place a disambiguation template such as {{for}} on top of "Glass transition".--Afluegel (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glass project.

Alright, let's talk about some details.

I propose making the Glass project layout look somewhat like the Physics homepage (aka things placed in boxes).
I'll set up the WP:Article alerts. I take it you have no objections?
You should build a list of glass-related "keywords" so User:AlexNewArtBot can pick up new articles related to glass topics. It doesn't matter if it picks article which are not glass-related, you only want to make sure to get all "potential candidates".
Do you want the {{Glass}} banner to use importance ratings?

That's it for now.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind offer to help! Below are some answers to your questions. Please keep in mind that it should not be a whole independent Wikiproject page, but just a task force, such as Fluid dynamics. Currently, there is insufficient support for a Wikiproject.

I agree with your proposal to make the Glass task force layout look somewhat like the Physics page, preferably like the Fluid dynamics page. If possible, most of the content of the current preparation page should be kept (except the introduction), and new info should be added as appropriate.
OK, just go ahead and set up the WP:Article alerts.
I will give you the list of keywords tomorrow. Basically this will mostly consist of synonyms of the word "glass".
Yes, the {{Glass}} banner should use importance ratings, and in addition also quality ratings.

Here are the keywords:

glass, glas, glasses, glassy, glassiness (or all words beginning with "glas")
vitreous, vitrification, vitrificated, vitro (or all words beginning with "vitr")
glaze, glazes, glazed, glazing (or all words beginning with "glaz")
enamel, enamels, enamelled, enameled, enameling, enamelling (or all words beginning with "enamel")
amorphous
non-crystalline, noncrystalline, non crystalline, not crystalline, non crystal, not crystal

--Afluegel (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've set up the project at WP:GLASS. Article alerts and "new articles" will take a day or two to set up. I'll work on it some more, but you and others can expand it as you see it. I'll let you contact other people. You can also start assessing articles /give them importance ratings. The relevant categories aren't yet created, but I will set them up in the near future (don't set them up yourself for now, there's some things I need to do with them).Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Logger9/Phase transformations in solids

As you can see, I have created yet another article -- this one focusing on the nature of structural transformations in solids as seen from a physicist's viewpoint (with a bit of Fourier theory). Please advise. I am currently working on an appropriate Introduction.

Special request: Could someone please make the equations look prettier ?? (see the last 2 sections) Hope all is well :-) -- logger9 (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The instruction about the formulas can be found here: Help:Displaying a formula. I will have a look at your suggested article within a few days. -- Afluegel (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is a little outside the area where I have experience. Otherwise I realize that you are having some nice images in the article :-) By the way: The summary must be before the table of contents, similar to an abstract in a scientific journal. All the best with it... --Afluegel (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diffusion in Solids

You definitely need a fresh article on the subject of "Diffusion in solids". Your current version just touches the tip of the iceberg. I have ordered a fresh copy of Shewmon's text from Amazon (I misplaced my copy from grad school) and I will try to create a rough draft as soon as it arrives. -- logger9 (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the current article is anyway marked as a so-called stub, i.e., an article that is still missing most of the content it should have.--Afluegel (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move

I am not allowed to move to "Glass transition" as long as it already exists (with a redirect to "Glass-liquid transition"). What next ? Do I need to contact an administrator ?? -- logger9 (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, contacting an administrator is the best way in this case.--Afluegel (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have submitted the move as an uncontested request. -- logger9 (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The transfer was implemented within several hours of making the request. Thanks for the help ! -- logger9 (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AWB to change Glass preproject to Glass

Don't bother wasting time doing so, I'll make it part of the bot request for the assessement.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you, I did not know. I modified most of the templates already, but some should be left, I think.--Afluegel (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stained glass from various places

I'll see what I can do. Amandajm (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer of Configurons

With your permission, I would like to go ahead and transfer (merge) Ojovan's work on the glass transition to the main page. I have already provided a section for it there. Please advise. -- logger9 (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the article Configuron or Glass-liquid transition? Concerning the latter one you can go ahead, but concerning the first one, for being polite, it is better to first insert the merge-template and wait for a while.--Afluegel (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha....done and done ! -- logger9 (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Logger9/Strength of glass fiber

Somewhere recently here, I saw a question about why bundles of glass fiber don't crack or fail when they are dropped the floor. Well folks: here is my first shot at the answer. I would welcome input, as the article should improve somewhat with time. I'm still trying to dig up old articles I had when I was working in fiber optics development. I would like to get it up and running ASAP (with the appropriate Wiki tag for an article under construction) so please advise ! -- logger9 (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good! I think you could easily include in the planned article also the strength of glass in general. I will copy this to the discussion pages of the articles Optical fiber and Fiberglass.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 07:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I will go ahead and publish it under construction as Strength of glass and see if I (& Davidge, Lawn & Green ) can't live up to the title. But if my new students start complaining about a lack of attention, I'm blaming it all on you ;-) -- logger9 (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Brian Lawn has been a NIST Fellow for years (I met him briefly at an ACerS conference), as was/is Dr. John W. Cahn who has been virtually retired here in Seattle now with an unpaid UW Affiliate Professorship in MSE / Physics. I contacted him last week, and we will be meeting on UW Campus soon to pursue any common ground. E.G. I have studied his Fourier treatment of concentration fluctuations in solids for years. It is one of the reasons that I went back to school to get a degree in mathematics. Hopefully he will have some tips to offer ! -- logger9 (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coloured glass

The bit that you moved to stained glass... Can we illustrate it with pictures of stained glass windows that use the various colours? Some of the info that it contains pertains specifically to bottles and the like. Is none of it relevant to the page that it came from? A person wanting to know how green bottles are coloured probably wouldn't look on the stained glass page.

Also, a new editor created a page on Medieval stained glass. This has probably come to your notice. Ther has been suggestions of a merge. In fact, it is an important article that needs to be greatly extended.

Amandajm (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at the Glass production page. I don't agree with the entire removal of all the information regarding colour from that page. I think that colour need s to be incorporated, because commercially produced containers are often coloured. The section 'Colour should be reinstated and a new lead paragraph should be written. The lead paragraph needs to reflect the fact that this is specifically commercially produced containers that are being described. There then needs to be detailed the sorts of colours which may naturally occur in glass, and those colours which are deliberately added to jars, wine and beer bottles, blue medicinal containers etc. This is part of the commercial production of glass.

Also, the division of the article into a mmajor section and a second section that simply redirects is a very clumsy way of handling the two common types of glass production. I would tend to rename the article 'Glass container production.

The two articles can be linked by See also

Amandajm (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, the glass color section came from the article Glass. Then it was moved 1-2 years ago to Glass production because the glass article seemed too long, not because Glass production is a particular good destination. The color section contains much useful information relevant to commercial glass colors and to glass used in art. Only the commercial part would fit into the article Glass production, I think. All right, I understand, that exactly this commercial part does not fit well into the article Stained glass. Therefore I would suggest the following: We create a new article "Glass coloring" or similar, move the entire section there, and the existing articles Glass, Glass production, and Stained glass just keep a part of it and refer otherwise to the main article "Glass coloring".--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 11:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning you other comments about the article Glass production: It original title was "Glass container industry", then it changed to "Glass container production" (which I agree is the best title now, given the content). Finally the title changed to "Glass production" with the intention to expand the float glass section and to introduce something about fiberglass production. OK, the plan did not come true so far, but still, the plan is somewhat reasonable because large-scale glass furnaces are rather similar, and only the forming and surface treatment part would need to be independently described. In addition, the articles Float glass and Fiberglass do not mention much about the glass furnaces. Nevertheless, the article Glass production still needs lots of work; I will try to get more attention for it.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 11:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Glass production, I would leave it as a separate article and give it a more appropriate name.
Re colours, I think that a separate article would go well, and require very little work.
When the stuff is included under container production, the the fact that it begins with a statement that "glass can be coloured, eg "Ruby glass" which uses gold, then this example draws it a long way from glass bottle and jar production. It is a very bad example to have first, in that context. However, a brief description of the colouring agents commonly used in bottles and jars, and a "Main article" tag to an article on glass colours would be good.
Our new editor (Oh Dear, I keep forgetting her name, is it Heather) has done such a good job of describing the colours used for ancient glass that I think that part needs to remain intact in the Medieval stained glass article.
We need to rationlise the "furnace" problem. Should it be under the general Glass article. I will go around and check the traps and see what is where. And get back to you.

Amandajm (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I nearly agree with everything and will start get working. Just the glass melting in large-scale industrial furnaces would possibly be too much for the main glass article. Therefore, we could have articles for glass melting (describing the big furnaces), and separated from it glass container production (including only the container forming and surface treatment), float glass, fiberglass, optical fiber etc.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 05:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article Glass coloring and marking - it still needs some work, however. Concerning the article Glass production, I copied first this discussion here on its talk page, in case other editors have comments.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 19:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plate glass image

Old window containing a single sheet of float glass in the upper left section, Jena, Germany. The remaining sections are possibly not float glass as indicated by the distorted reflections of a tree.

This is a stunning picture. However, your uncertainty about the type of glass used in the greater part of the window, and the caption is really unencyclopedic. It looks like early plate glass. Amandajm (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC) The problem with the term "plate glass" is that is is used as an alternative for "flat glass" or "window glass". Amandajm (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a child (in the 1970s and 80s), most window glasses looked like the uneven part of the image. I took the picture last year, just in case it will get replaced. Now most windows have very smooth float glasses with nearly perfect reflection. Concerning the production process of the old plate glass: It could be possible with some effort to find out what the old way of glass manufacture was in the former East Germany before the float process was introduced. I will try to do some research.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 05:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite fascinating how old glass differs locally. I'd be very interested to know what you can come up with about this.

In the Illawarra region, south of Sydney, there was a leadlighter who had a skill that was rarely employed in Australia- he set diaper panes at slight angles to each other so that the windows glint like facetted diamonds. Most 1920-30 Mock-Tudor leadlighting is quite flat. I must say that the first time I saw this technique employed I was worried and thought that the lead was collapsing, but it wasn't! On looking around, I found numerous windows leaded the same way. A major 19th century restoration example in England is at Haddon Hall.

I was passing through a country town in New South Wales and noticed all the early 20th century shop fronts had exquisite leadlighting with bevelled edges and delightful designs that maintained the current fashion, moving from Art Nouveau to Deco to Moderne, all with exceptional artistry and hallmark characteristics of the same local studio. That was years ago. I suppose they have nearly all gone now, without being recorded. And I, stupidly, didn't draw anything or write down the details, so I can't even remember whether it was Parkes, Forbes, Gundagai, Wilcannia or Woop Woop! Amandajm (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Logger9/Kinetic theory of solids

OK. This is the big one that I have been working up to. Please....try to be gentle !!! -- logger9 (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you spent a lot of work into it. The proposed article is, however, outside of my area of expertise and it would me take several days full-time work to start understanding it. Just one thing, as always with your articles: A common reader can not understand it at all, not even a tiny section! I really would advise creating such a section. You should be reminded, that popular explanations exist for the most complicated theories, for example the Schroedinger-equation, the theory of relativity, etc. The popular explanation is not a technical or scientific problem, but I think that some scientists are simply too lazy or self-important to do it, because, for sure, it requires a little extra work and the recognition that others are not totally stupid, even if they do not understand a certain equation. - Sorry, this is not meant personally and possibly does not apply to you, but I do not have another way to make the point really clear. All the best with the article, and thank you for your huge efforts! -- Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 07:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I read the proposed article again. It is certainly in important topic and in my opinion you could start the article. However, I will put the template {{technical}} on its talk page. - And sorry again for not being so friendly about the topic. -- Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 18:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks immensely for your timely response. I know that this one was likely a royal headache ! I am completely in sympathy with your requests, and think that a brief explanatory section (a paragraph or two upfront) would be extremely helpful in the vast majority of cases. It took me burning the midnight oil just to get this one on the map -- so I have not had time to step back and form a nice simply-phrased overview. But as soon as I do, I will look forward to addressing the 'technical' template. Thanks again ! -- logger9 (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you do not take it personally. By the way, I just put the {{technical}} banner on the talk pages of some of your other articles. As they are just on the talk pages, they are not seen by a reader right away, and do not make the article itself look "ugly" :-) All the best...--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 19:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It helps to have a little forewarning here on your talkpage. It's amazing the difference in overall impact that a little positive communication can have ! -- logger9 (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furnace

What is inappropriate about a link to furnace in a glass making article? Quote: "A furnace is a device used for heating." In the article, "furnace" is the word used for the device used to heat the raw materials to make glass. What is your point in reverting the link? Hu (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for not better explaining. The article furnace does not contain anything about glass furnaces, but a lot about metallurgical furnaces. Glass furnaces are totally different from metallurgical furnaces. A better article for glass furnace is Glass_production#Furnace. I would recommend to link there, or to introduce something about glass furnaces in the article furnace. Do you have further suggestions, or other ideas in mind? Thank you for your help! -- Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 19:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transparent Materials merger

There has been no opposition over the past couple of months to the proposed merger of the brief article on Transparency (optics) to the main article on Transparent materials. With your permission, I would like to proceed with the merger using a redirect, and suggest that the main article be placed within the scope of Glass Science. -- logger9 (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the autority to permit or to forbid the merger, so I just can give my opinion. I think you may merge Transparency (optics) into Transparent materials, but this also requires more work than only a redirect on the page Transparency (optics) for the following reasons:

The article Transparency (optics) lists on top other meanings that should not be directed to Transparent materials such as the Japanese manga series or the punk album. Therefore, all the other meanings need to be copied to the disambiguation page Transparency, and also your article Transparent materials.
Then, the article Transparency (optics) has some good images that you should not forget to copy to the article Transparent materials, in particular the stars and the butterfly.
Finally, you need to make sure that the article Transparent materials contains a complete definition of "transparency".

I hope I did not forget anything. Good luck... -- Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 19:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the other meanings, is it OK if I list them near the bottom of the page, instead of at the top ? It just seems awkward to me to open up the topic with a distracting reference to Japanese manga and punk rock ! Regarding a definition, there is a great start on that page, which I plan to supplement or enhance to some degree. Also, I would plan to include all images and text comprehensively. -- logger9 (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the Japanese manga and punk rock it was obviously a misunderstanding. They do not need to appear at all in the article Transparent materials, even not at the bottom. I just asked you to copy the links somewhere into the disambiguation page Transparency, which lists already many other meanings. Please do not hesitate to ask, if there further mistunderstandings.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 11:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Logger9/Transparent_alumina

Recently, a 21 kB article has been reduced back down to 7 kB (see discussion here.) Apparently, one of the original authors is unhappy with my work, and unwilling to accept any of it whatsoever. Thus, I have republished my changes to the article on Transparent alumina here. Please feel free to review and advise. -- logger9 (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the copyright discussion is not completed yet, because Glengarry and NW did not reply yet to your statements. I also copied the discussion to the talk page of Transparent alumina. I will have a look at the copyright issue myself later, I just have the problem that in private life we are having visitors this months and I am quite busy. Anyway, I will try to find some time.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 06:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for your continuing time and efforts :-) -- logger9 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no further discussion of this matter since my last post -- so I would like to go ahead and re-post my edits if you feel that it would be appropriate. I think that the extremely brief article would greatly benefit from the expansion and overview of the field.. Please advise. -- logger9 (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggested approach is possible, but it would be more polite to put a short note on the talk pages of Glengarry and NW and asking them to reply to your comments on the discussion page of Transparent alumina. (PS: Until June 2 I am very busy personally, but afterwards I will have a little more time.) -- Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 15:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and done. Thanks ! -- logger9 (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embarrassment to Wikipedia

i have seriously been trying to bite my lip while Star Trek fans have their fun (I am a huge fan myself !) But regardless of what Scottie may or may not have said in any given episode, the article on Transparent aluminum is rapidly becoming an embarrassment to Wikipedia.

A solid object may be not transparent either because it reflects the incoming light or because it absorbs the incoming light. Of course, almost all solids reflect a part and absorb a part of the incoming light.

For example, when light falls onto a block of metal, it encounters atoms that are tightly packed in a regular lattice and a "sea of electrons" moving randomly between the atoms. These randomly placed electrons move chaotically (and dissipatively) between the ordered atoms of a typical polycrystalline metallic solid. This is the nature of the metallic bond.

Most of the light is scattered back from this kind of material, which is precisely why we see a shiny metal surface. Metals reflect most of the light because they have free electrons -- and no matter how small you make the "metallic beads" they will still have those free electrons !

These electrons are shaken by the electric field of the light which is an electromagnetic wave, and emit two waves. One wave is in the direction of the incoming wave, which is visible as the reflected wave. The other wave is similar in amplitude and in the same direction as the incoming wave. But since they are not traveling in phase, the deconstructive interference gives rise to a zero amplitude wave. Thus no light is transmitted through liquid or solid metals.

This is NOT a Star Trek episode.

This is the physical reality of Transparent materials.

-- logger9 (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me as a chemist the article does not make any chemical sense. Aluminum or aluminium is an element, and not a compound. Of course, aluminum containing compounds exist that are transparent, but the coumpounds are not termed aluminum any longer, but for example alumina or aluminium oxynitride or similar. As I do not see any scientific content, I would leave the article to Star Trek fans and delete the pseudo-science part.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 20:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did an excellent job of editing out the fiction, and saving the fun for the Trekkies :-) -- logger9 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your vacations!

Sorry I didn't reply sooner, I was rather busy in the last weeks (and will be in the weeks ahead too). I'll drop by the project every now and then to see how things go. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glass transition merger/massacre

A new user has merged the glass transition temperature with the glass transition -- and is currently attempting to remove the entire previous contents of the original article. Her radically aggressive "slash and burn" editing techniques are completely inappropriate, and totally out of sync with standard Wikipedia protocol. She is obsessively persistent -- and somewhat irrational (cursing me and calling me names like "shameless"). Please advise. --logger9 (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Physics of glass on endangered species list

The same "slash and burn" editor User:Paula_Pilcher is now formulating her attack on the Physics of glass page. It would not surprise me if it were gone by morning. -- logger9 (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strength of Glass deleted

With no notification whatsoever, I just happened to notice that the article on Strength of glass has been removed in its entirety due to copyright violation. I went to the website they mentioned, and have to say that I have never even seen it before. It is certainly true that I have read and reviewed and relied heavily on the work of Kurkijan (and would be glad to rewrite the article if necessary). But these actions seem to me to be unfounded -- and radically destructive. Please advise -- logger9 (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic deformation in solids

As per your suggestion, I have removed the bulk of my contributions from the table you presented here and created a new Wiki article under the above title, which I will be working on in the coming weeks. Thank you very much for your continuing help and guidance in this matter. -- logger9 (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I replied on the talk page of the article Glass transition.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 07:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts and response. But do its location and exposure, it looks like that may have been just enough to intitiate its speedy deletion by the "predator editor" herself. Please see my new introduction to the article and advise. -- logger9 (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I commented in favour of your article on the discussion page for speedy deletion.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 06:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your post on the glass transition talk page

Just as a courtesy, I'm letting you know I've removed your latest post from that page. I don't think it was helpful in ending the current situation, and it wasn't really the appropriate place to post it anyway. Please see the edit history for my original response. Thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 11:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gone Baby Gone

Aside from the introduction, the entire article on Plastic deformation in solids was removed. What recourse do I have, if any ?? -- logger9 (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see, the problem has been resolved already. Sorry for the late reply.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 22:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close. The article is currently up for deletion. If you have any support for the article whatsoever, NOW is the time to say so. Otherwise, it may certainly be gone soon -- in its entirety. -- logger9 (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glass transition

Hi Afluegel!

I'd like to ask you this out of the formality of the talk page, and so that others can have time to respond, per your request. The phenominon were discussing seems to be solidification, or freezing. From the freezing article and the web definitions of vitrified: Vitrified is to be frozen, without crystalizing, into a glass. That seems to describe the transition itself. The Tg seems to be the process through which this occurs. Would I be correct in assuming that both are different aspects of the phenominon, freezing, and that it would be impossible to define one without defining the other? (Something like trying to define gravity without defining weight?)

I do notice that at least one of your examples, the second to the last one posted, says "the transition", and I would assume that, in a source that is about glass, it may be common to omit the unnecessary word "glass" before the word transition. Is that plausible?

To me, it seems that an article should bear the most exact name of what the article is actually about In this case, the freezing-in, or vitrification process. And it should clarify better than the freezing article the aspects of how the two differ, those aspects being Tg and the transition, both.

Thanks for all of your help. Zaereth (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zaereth, thank you for your feedback! The freezing or solidification of glass is quite special, e.g., it is different from the freezing of water. The term "transition" in Scholze's book is something different, because it is replaced by "transformation" in this book. In my opinion, there are two small problems:

The term "vitrification" could theoretically be used for the glass liquid-solid transition, so in principle you are right, but in practice it is used for nuclear waste vitrification. Therefore, I would redirect "vitrification" to the waste disposal article and take the waste vitrification out of the glass transition article. It really does not belong there.
The term "glass transition" is often used among glass scientists in private conversation, because out of the context the meaning is clear. However, officially and also in all the references I cited it is "glass transition range" or similar, with range meaning a temperature range. This term is the most correct and most widely used. I also would agree with user:Materialscientist to call the article after a phenomenon, which then would be "glass liquid-solid transition". In any case, the article needs to treat both. If the title is just "glass transition", it is not clear from where to where the transition is supposed to occur.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 19:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that makes perfect sense to me. I was hoping Logger9 or Materialscientist would be able to show that this term is one that has been defined in something more scientific than a google search, but since none have been produced, I must agree with your assessment. The article should be renamed to be as clear and accurate as possible, so that the reader knows exactly what he's getting into. Perhaps Glass liquid to solid transition would help clarify it a little more.

I'm hoping that my questions have helped demonstrate what may be unclear, at least to those of us who need to understand things from a purely mechanical point of view. (For instance, electronics was a complete mystery to me, until someone explained it with an analogy to hydraulics. ie: diode = check valve, transistor = pilot operated valve, etc...) Now that the fighting has stopped over there, I think I'll wait a while to see what others have to say, but I'm glad to say that my own knowledge has increased by helping out. Zaereth (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that is unclear about the article is the statement that glass contracts at a constant rate. How does that differ from crystalizing? Do all liquids that crystalize go through a sudden expansion, the way that water does? If not, then how does this constant contraction rate differ? Zaereth (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all substances contract suddenly during crystallization, with water being the exception. Glasses do not crystallize; just around Tg they start to contract less quickly than above Tg, which can be seen in the fourth figure in the glass transition article (see the red lines).--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 13:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I think that an explanation such as that would really help out in the lede. Zaereth (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I copied part of this discussion to the glass transition talk page.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 04:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Density versus Refractive Index plot

Hello, Can you provide a reference, or somewhere for me to look for this image you uploaded (in the Index of Refraction: Relation to Density page) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Density-nd.GIF

Thanks, Demis (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Glass Barnstar

Hello Afluegel, I've been thinking that we should have a special glass looking barnstar to be awarded to users who contribute to improving glass related articles. I'm not sure how we could do this, maybe we could request one be made or try and make it ourselves. What do you think? Polyamorph (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Glass history

File:Glass property.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Glass property.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can glass be worked in a vacuum?

in order to avoid bubbles, do you think? ( Martin | talk • contribs 23:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Notice of entry at WP:MISS

Hello Afluegel, I hope you don't mind but since you have not edited in over a year and were previously a prolific editor on glass related articles I have added your name to the list at WP:MISSYOU. I hope that you come back and are able to remove yourself from the list. But if not I hope you are well and enjoying your time away from wikipedia. All the best Polyamorph (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user may have left Wikipedia. Afluegel has not edited Wikipedia since since September 15, 2009. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Category:Glass forming

Category:Glass forming, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Common oxide glass components

Category:Common oxide glass components, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 18:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Glass science institutes

Category:Glass science institutes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 06:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Glass makers and brands has been nominated for discussion

Category:Glass makers and brands, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:SpiderGraph Abbe Number.gif

A tag has been placed on File:SpiderGraph Abbe Number.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement of http://glassproperties.com/abbe_number/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. House Blaster^talk 16:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]