Talk:KT (energy)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
‹See TfM›
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | The contents of the RT (energy) page were merged into KT (energy) on 18 November 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Proposed merge with RT (energy)
[edit]I wanted the value for kT, so I'm glad it's in a separate article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhansma (talk • contribs) 16:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Identical topics, just scaled to molecular or molar level Adabow (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Disagree: Because RT has a completely arbitrary constant (Avogadro's number) thrown into it, kT is more fundamental than RT. It obscures the fact that kT has the direct interpretation that 1/2 kT is the energy per degree of freedom to "obtain" it from RT. It is a matter of a few lines to get back and forth between kT = <m v_x^2> to fundamental observations like pressure = particle density * kT. In summary, I can't see how it would be a win to make kT subsidiary to RT. Brian Hill (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't thinking of redirecting this article to RT, but of merging the two to some new title. I don't know what that would be, but it seems silly to have two stub articles discussing the same concept. Adabow (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with both of Adabow and Brian Hill. The solution is to merge them into a single article call kT (energy). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- A merge makes lots of sense. OTOH, I'm evaluating as a physicist, so I can only imagine how a chemist would feel if RT became subsidiary to kT. Brian Hill (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Noting the consensus for a merge, and a weaker consensus for merge to kT (allowing for WP:SILENCE),
Done Klbrain (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Noting the consensus for a merge, and a weaker consensus for merge to kT (allowing for WP:SILENCE),
- A merge makes lots of sense. OTOH, I'm evaluating as a physicist, so I can only imagine how a chemist would feel if RT became subsidiary to kT. Brian Hill (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with both of Adabow and Brian Hill. The solution is to merge them into a single article call kT (energy). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Bad article name, article should not exist
[edit]This article has a terrible name, it is apt to cause more confusion to readers than help them. (Think: how will readers get to this article, and what do they expect to find here?)
If the concept does not have a specific name, but is only a piece of Boltzmann's equation, it almost certainly should not have an article. Whatever information is here should be moved to other articles, e.g. Boltzmann's equation. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Disagree: It is the second-to-the-top search result for kT, on both Google and DuckDuckGo. If it weren't for that, nothing relevant to Boltzmann's constant would be in the top 10 search results for either search engine. Brian Hill (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree: I use this page a lot, but maybe it could be merged with Thermal energy. Ishmandoo (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Some small corrections that have been made
[edit]I made a small edit to the end of the article. One kT has units of energy, not energy/mol. That's RT.
kT at room temperature is ~ 25 meV, so kT/e should be ~ 25 mV, this should be corrected.
Good catch. Looks like somebody already fixed it. Brian Hill (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)