Talk:Kramers' opacity law

Applications

I think a section on applications of Kramer's law would be very helpful -- especially for stellar atmospheres, and perhaps illustrating a situation in which it is a poor approximation for the opacity. All Clues Key (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright tag

I am not sure why the tag got placed, especially since the page linked in the tag was dead, so I was not able to even see what, if any, similarities exist. I drew the material for the article primarily from Carroll and Ostlie, and I directly copied (and cited) the specific equations, but I was not looking at any source directly while writing the text (though it does look like my language in a couple of places was probably influenced by phrases that I had just read in Carroll and Ostlie). James McBride (talk) (forgot to sign before so adding a signature)

The link is not dead, it is 403 (forbidden), meaning you're not allowed to access it (presumably Google saw it before someone limited access). Hairhorn (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am missing your point, but why does my calling the link dead rather than forbidden matter? All I said is that I cannot access that linked material, so I cannot possibly address why there are similarities and to what extent this wiki page and the link are the same. I have never experienced copyright violation problems before, but figured the normal course of action would be to take down the tag (since I did not violate any copyright) and provide an explanation of what happened on the talk page.

Also, I agree that the article is a bit too technical. Do you have any specific suggestions for areas that need greater explanation (that don't devolve in to explaining each of the other relatively obscure terms in the article)? I can't make any promises, but some specific issues would make it likelier that I can find a way to broaden the appeal. The one thing that I try to think about when writing articles on astronomy is how a lay reader might come to that article, and then try to address questions that such a reader might have (though I admittedly do this very imperfectly). For this article though, I could not really imagine the context in which someone would come across this article outside of reading a book about stars and then seeing a reference to or incomplete explanation of Kramers' opacity law, and so the article mostly focuses on that, and in that context, I am not sure what I would do to make it more accessible other than write summaries of the linked articles here. It may be that this subject comes up elsewhere, but I am unaware of other areas where it is important. James McBride (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse bremmstrahlung

Actually the mechanism is not bremmsstrahlung (it is absorption, not emission), but "inverse bremmsstrahlung". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.52.80.210 (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Z: heavier than hydrogen

The current text states that Z describes the abundance of elements heavier than hydrogen. Usually, it describes elements heavier that helium (X=H, Y=He, Z=rest). Is this correct here, should it be changed to helium, or should there be a footnote to avoid (my) confusion? AstroFloyd (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]