Talk:Jeans instability

First, atomic hydrogen is 1.67E-27 kg the 3x10^4 (30,000) should be 92,679, right? Use a spreadsheet! Next, https://www.cambridge.org/de/files/1413/6682/0025/1005_S282Ex14.pdf Cambridge uses a different formula for calculating Jeans Mass if the 375 in this article is replaced with 81/8 then the formulas match perfectly. The square root of the ratio is about 6. I dislike the formula here as it makes Jeans Mass for Bernard 68, 10.117 solar masses and Cambridge's formula makes Jeans Mass 1.662 solar masses assuming it is all molecular hydrogen not just mostly. Anyway, it is advertised in Wikipedia as a collapsing cloud a star that will be born in 200,000 years. Please fix this I spent quite a while trying to figure out how I could be miscalculating Bernard 68’s critical mass (Jeans mass). I trust wiki more than I trust myself not so much anymore. Restore the faith! Karl Unterleitner 2/13/2023

I like this article, and think that it can be strengthened if we merge the Jeans length and Jeans mass articles into it. I suggest we keep the "collapse time"/"free-fall time" distinct, as it is essentially a purely gravitational (as opposed to a combined gravitational/hydrodynamical) phenomenon.

-- Rtfisher 29 May 2006

support I think they should be merged. As the Jeans Instability is the more general page, it should be kept. But I think it should be merged carefully as there's a lot of good stuff in the Jeans mass which needs to come over. --H2g2bob 17:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

support After this length of time, the stubiness of the length article is not justifiable, and I suspect the "swindle" material applies equally to both pages, though this is a little out of my league. — MaxEnt (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. merge complete. --DavidCary (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear statement

It is said "The greater the mass of the cloud, the smaller its size, and the colder its temperature, the less stable it will be against gravitational collapse. " But in the following, that only small sizes are stable. It seems contradictory...

perhaps in the second statement 'small mass' would be more appropriate Rakspak (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]