Talk:Sound particle

Don't understand why this has been marked for speedy deletion. Terms such as sound particle displacement, sound particle velocity (or just particle displacement, particle velocity), are widely used in acoustics but it is difficult to find just what is meant by a particle. I could edit the article to make this clear. Sound particle (in the context of particle displacement etc) an imaginary infinitesimal ... PeterHaughton 17:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If its difficult to find out what these mean, then you may have an issue with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a place for original research.--Crossmr 14:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not research. All technical articles on acoustics use terms like particle velocity & particle displacement. Such terms are defined in glossaries such as the International Standard IEC 60050 - 801 (1994) Acoustics & Electroacoustics, but even this authoritative glossary does not define particle in the acoustic sense. An internet search also failed to turn up a definition. I think most writers and all acousticians take the meaning to be obvious, though some make reference to air molecules which would be misleading to a beginner (because a molecule is generally thought of as a particular kind of physical/chemical entity - eg pair of nitrogen atoms if the medium is air). I think I saw a definition of sound particle, similar to the one here, in the British Standard BS 661 (1969) A glossary of acoustical terms, but the standard has now been superseded. I will look this up next time I get the chance.

All I have done here is to supply a definition that I thought was missing. If this is not appropriate in WP, please remove it. Thanks. PeterHaughton 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is fine, but everything on wikipedia must be verifiable. If we can't verify what you wrote, it can't be kept here. If you say that the standards document doesn't define this term, and you can't find a definition for it, then there is a problem. If you have a look at WP:OR#What_is_excluded.3F you'll see "It defines new terms;". You're defining a new term here. Since you can't provide a credible source for this per the standards, wikipedia considers that original research.--Crossmr 19:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explanations of sound particle are given in two books written by me. I could cite one or both as references but presume this would be unacceptable or at least not considered as a valid basis for verification. PeterHaughton 18:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the books are published by a credible company (and not self-published) you're welcome to cite them. While we sometimes frown on people creating articles about themselves or their work its generally because they tend to write them in a vain manner, you don't come across as that, so I wouldn't personally have an issue with it.--Crossmr 18:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haughton, P.M. (1980) Physical Principles of Audiology. Adam Hilger, Bristol.
Haughton, P.M. (2002) Acoustics for Audiologists. Academic Press.
PeterHaughton 21:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted one of the two references (long out of print). One is enough. Will add reference from an independent source if I can find one. PeterHaughton 08:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]