Talk:Inductively coupled plasma

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mass spectrometry (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mass spectrometry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Mass spectrometryWikipedia:WikiProject Mass spectrometryTemplate:WikiProject Mass spectrometryMass spectrometry articles

Spectroscopy (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spectroscopy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SpectroscopyWikipedia:WikiProject SpectroscopyTemplate:WikiProject SpectroscopySpectroscopy articles

Comments

I want to take issue with the last paragraph: "Another benefit of ICP discharges is that they are relatively free of contamination because the electrodes are completely outside the reaction chamber. In a capacitively coupled plasma (CCP), in contrast, the electrodes are placed inside the reactor and are thus exposed to the plasma and subsequent reactive chemical species."

It implies that CCPs cannot be created by external antennas (when the challenge of creating an ICP is often keeping it from being capactively coupled) and also ignores one of the crucial reasons why ICPs can be cleaner than CCPs: the lower plasma potential of ICPs results in a smaller sheath potential which causes less sputtering.

But I've never really posted to wikipedia and only have a bachelors so it would be nice to be backed up on this. Maybe I'll get the guts to change it on my own if I come back and no one has said anything after a while.

Pwbrenne 22:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electron density

It said 10¹⁵cm^-3, this made no sense, but 10¹⁵cm³ appears more appropriate.

--Hhash (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was correct as it was with electron density in electrons/volume, in this case electrons per cubic centimeter and units of cm^-3. --Kkmurray (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

The above discussion underlies some serious technical problems with the article.

First, if it's electrons / volume, it should be 10^15 per m^3. m^-3 doesn't make sense unless you're saying that 1 cm = 10^-3m.

Second, "When a time-varying electric current is passed through the coil" .. a "time-varying electric current" sounds like something partially-translated. It is not (as the opening paragraph suggests) electromagnetic induction. --Otheus (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? 10¹⁵m^-3 = 10¹⁵ per m³ = one million billion (short scale) per cubic meter.

A "time-varying electric current" is an electric current that varies in time. This is standard phrasing; if the article is not accessible to a non-technical audience, a brief explanation could be added to the first instance after the lead, I suppose. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]