Talk:Lyman series

Physics Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Why are there two different pages for Lyman-alpha_line and Lyman series? They seem to be repetitive. User:alejandr013

This article has a lot of legacy units. Can anyone ensure that this article works in SI units? Bobblewik 16:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frigoris 16:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Can anyone add the applications of Lyman- $\alpha$ Forest in astronomy to this article?[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 09:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelengths

I just removed the figure because it had the wrong wavelength for Lyman beta. It should be 1025.72 Angstroms, not 1025.18. Source: http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Handbook/Tables/hydrogentable2.htm Also, Parenti, Vial, Lemaire, 2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 443, 679. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.142.24.64 (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just uploaded a new version, then discover that I fail at rounding. Give me a mo' to fix it again. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong numbers

It seems to me the number 12430 is calculated wrong. Googling "h * c / electron charge / angstrom" without the quotes (as well as manual calculation) gives me 12398.4 Can anyone explain this? 2001:610:1908:8000:C9A6:DCFD:5E11:D44E (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well since it calculates the values from the table wrong, i'm assuming nobody ever bothered to check it. I'm updating the value 2001:610:1908:8000:C9A6:DCFD:5E11:D44E (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12398.4 as a value for hc in eV*Angstroms, is indeed correct. Thanks for noticing. S B H arris 02:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]