Talk:Ionization

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ionization article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

‹See TfM›

Physics High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-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

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

Dissociation / Ionization

According to Dissociation (chemistry): "[dissociation] is frequently confused with ionization." But neither article explains the difference. Please reply at Talk:Dissociation (chemistry) Eleland 02:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Does anyone know why ionization is spelt with a 'z' when the expected form would be 'ionisation' and 'ionise'? This doesn't appear to be a regional difference as all textbooks that I have seen use the spelling listed in the article.Zebulin (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ENGVAR. All my texts say "ionize" (even Atkins!). --Kkmurray (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I don't understand. Why is ionize universally spelt with a zed? I've never seen it spelt ionise or ionisation anywhere even though we'd expect 'ion' to have such a suffix according to the pattern seen for all other words. I'm aware that some generally use 'ize' instead of 'ise' for all such suffixes but this seems to be a case where everybody uses 'ize'. Zebulin (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter whether you spell ionise or ionised with a z or s. My dictionary says that the spelling with an s is more common in British English. In Scientific articles, either spelling is allowed, although the z variant seems to be used more often. I guess the important thing is to only use one of the two variants in the article. AJH.

The American version is spelt with a 'z' and the English version is spelt with a 's'.

Institute of Physics publications (in Great Britain) want "z"s in every "-zation". I presume because it matches the pronunciation and is easier for foreign readers to pronounce correctly. 76.212.128.2 (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flame ionization

Isn't this article the right place to explain how the ions are produced in an FID? Is ionization during a chemical reaction called chemical ionization? – Rainald62 (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Small error on graph

Comment: The dot for element 85 At is missing from the graph for those of you who are studying this in detail. 76.212.128.2 (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Ionization Section

It is my understanding the ionization is largely a quantum mechanical effect. I feel like the section on classical ionization should be renamed to "Classical Model of Ionization". I also feel that sequential ionization should be put underneath the quantum ionization section because plenty of ionization models (ADK, PPT) treat only the problem of sequential ionization and they are in no way classical models.

I also think the section titled quantum ionization about be better described by Photoionization (includes tunneling, mulitphoton, ATI, and any other ionization model that is due to electromagnetic waves).

Do you think it is reasonable to include a section on collisional ionization and chaotic ionization?

Lukealanjohnson (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have an air filter with a fan or a fan/ion switch. Is it inappropriate to ask for such a layperson explanation here? Virillustre (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ionization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Projectile coherence

I removed this primary source Egodapitiya, K. N.; Sharma, S.; Hasan, A.; Laforge, A. C.; Madison, D. H.; Moshammer, R.; Schulz, M. (2011). "Manipulating Atomic Fragmentation Processes by Controlling the Projectile Coherence". Physical Review Letters. 106 (15). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.153202. ISSN 0031-9007. Revert of IP edit here: [1]. It doesn't seem to fit in this general article. Also, IP suggests potential WP:COI. --Kkmurray (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing caption about auroras

The caption says: “The solar wind moving through the magnetosphere alters the movements of charged particles in the Earth's thermosphere or exosphere, and the resulting ionization of these particles causes them to emit light of varying color, thus forming auroras near the polar regions.”

This says that there are charged particles which are moved by the solar wind. This movement results in the ionization of these charged particles. But charged particles are already ions according to the definition of ions earlier in the article. The layman reader might ask “can a particle which is already an ion be ionized further by a solar wind?” The reader will probably be expecting from the definition earlier in the article that ionization is going from non-ion to ion.

Yellowpelican (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]