Talk:Calorimeter

Chemistry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Calorimeters in particle physics

Calorimeters in particle physics (as particle detectors) are completely missing from this page. Any ideas how to include them? The content is potentially at least as big as calorimeters in chemistry. Maybe a disambiguation page should be created pointing to 'calorimeters in chemistry' and 'calorimeters in physics' gbrandt 14:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah and what about calorimotors used in exercise physiology experiments? They measure the calories burned in exercise or when a person is resting, and are obviously large enough to fit a person. [1] andphoto of room size calorimeter. I saw one report that noted their accuracy is about +/- 4%, which is apparently good enough for their use. - Taxman 18:37, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Merge with all other xxx calorimeter-type articles done. --Phils 20:13, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Feedback

In the first section of this article, this sentence makes no sense: "In addition, the object placed inside the calorimeter show that the objects transferred their heat to the calorimeter and into the liquid, and the heat absorbed by the calorimeter and the liquid is equal to the heat given off by the metals." I would try to correct it but I don't know what the intent of the original author was. In addition to what? The object is showing? Are the metals referred to being reacted together or are they part of the calorimeter? And there are grammar problems too. Can anybody improve this?JDHeinzmann (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mythbusters

Hey, I don't know if anyone else here watches Mythbusters, but this page was just briefly featured in the most recent episode! Congratulations, you're famous! (lol) --KPWM_Spotter 01:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it appeared on Mythbusters. --Pichu0102 03:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it qualify to be cited in the Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media area? --293.xx.xxx.xx 04:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this on the Mythbusters as well. I do belive it deserves to be in the Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media area. --Straws 1:21, 20 July 2006 (EST)

Edited to Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a source on TV and radio. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just watching Mythbusters and saw this article! Well, once I saw it I couldn't think of anything better to do than come here and write about it. 24.118.233.72 03:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what it was on Mythbusters? This is WIKIPEDIA!! One of the largest informational sites on Earth!! You think that just famous people use it? NO! EVERYONE USES IT! (Well, mostly everyone.)--Colonel Valh ala-112 21:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid self-references

Folks, can we please stop putting mention of the MythBusters appearance in the actual article? This is, after all, an article about calorimeters—not an article about the Wikipedia article on calorimeters. I can certainly understand that fans of the show are excited and want to bring attention to Grant's viewing of this article; I know I was happy to see Wikipedia getting even a few seconds of visibility on one of my favorite television shows (though it would have been nice if we were mentioned by name and/or if something more distinguishing like the logo were shown). Nonetheless, there's no good reason for an encyclopedia article on calorimeters to point out that one episode of a television show happened to show a few seconds of someone researching calorimeters using a particular online resource. So, let's leave such meta discussion of the MythBusters connection to this talk page, and keep the encyclopedia article encyclopedic and free of self-references, okay? — Jeff | (talk) | 06:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People were doing this? Huh. --293.xx.xxx.xx 01:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there were, my favorite [2]--Coasttocoast 01:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to prove basic physics here

I removed the statement "This shows that the matter can be neither created nor destroyed." from the main page. We should be able to take basic principles of physics for granted, rather than having to use this particular technology to reinvent them.

We have much more accurate ways of approaching those underlying issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.54.131.7 (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need the heading "Types"

Virtually all of the page is about "types", so it's one heading and a lot of sub-headings, which makes it harder to see the difference between a new sub-heading and a new sub-sub-heading (just slight changes in font size). May I suggest removing "Types" and promoting all the headings 1.1 thruogh to 1.9, so we have headings 1 to 9 (with their natural line break) as different calorimeters (with 2.1 to 2.4 as the different reaction calorimeters), followed by 10 for "refs" and 11 for "see also" Ronhjones (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one replied. I shall be "Bold"... Ronhjones (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is need for substantial improvements to Calorimetry and Calorimeter

These pages are not good. They miss a lot of calorimeters and do not mention some quite common types of calorimeters. Clearly a disamb. page would be good, but it is difficult to structure such a page as there is no internationally approved standard nomenclature in this field (possibly except for DSC). For example can all these mean the same instrument: Isothermal calorimeter, heat conduction calorimeter, heat loss calorimeter, isoperibol calorimeter and microcalorimeter. However, a disamb. page dividing the calorimeters into 1. Particle physics detectors. 2. Heat measurement devices. 3. Indirect calorimeters could be used. Under heat measurement devices (which I work with), I would suggest a division into A. Temperature scanning calorimeters. B. Isothermal calorimeters. C. Adiabatic calorimeters. D. Semi-adiabatic calorimeters. This division is based what conditions the sample is exposed to, not on how this is achieved. It is not a division totally free of problems, but it is based easily understandable words (at least for people with a knowledge in chemistry/physics; the terms could also be translated into non-scientific language; isothermal calorimeter = constant temperature calorimeter). LarsWads (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest adding E. Flow Calorimetry ( Heat = flow * (Tout-Tin) ) : please ping me on my talk page. Alanf777 (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Math Formatting?

Would anyone be interested in reformatting the equations under "Bomb calorimeters"to be in math formatting?74.131.133.12 (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

There should be a labelled diagram of calorimeter Iqra muhammad (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Big Ideas in Chemistry

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2024 and 14 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Namington4 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Editsfordummies, ScienceGoose.

— Assignment last updated by ChemWorx (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]