Talk:Acoustics/temp
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's suggested that this text supersede paragraphs 2-5 of the current article. The article would begin with the 1st and 6th paragraphs of the current text, then the following text, then the list. Comments / suggestions / edits welcome. I'd like to put it up in a couple of weeks if all goes well. Adrian Pollock (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I really like what you wrote, and made some edits and cuts throughout. My concern is that this is exclusively historical. I'd like to put in sections about fundamental concepts, applications, and possibly research areas. I'm having trouble completing the list of fundamental concepts and applications. Your thoughts? I'll draft some material for my vision of the fundamental concepts and applications before Sunday. Also, I was looking around for pictures, and there are some good ones already available on the German site. This is the Google translation of German site. Is this how you wanted to edit the material, or should I put these comments on the talk page? Joe056 (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good going Joe. I haven't studied your material in full detail yet, but I see that you are fixing to make the article more substantial across the board. I'm up for that; I had confined my ambitions to the introduction before, but certainly, its kinda stubby to have just a historical review and a list of subfields. Also, your organization of the subfields into groups is constructive and likely very helpful to newcomers. It had crossed my mind to try that but after noting that the previous list was close to a referenceable list from elsewhere, I said ok enough already. About the German article, it looks good, the one thing I didn't like was the way in the second paragraph it gave such pride of place to one particular subfield so early in the overall article. First time I saw anything from an other-language Wikipedia article.
- So, looks like we have some good things going. I'm real new to Wikipedia, just one article written very recently (Lamb waves) and a few minor edits here and there, how about you ? A question that comes up for me is: how long do we use this space to build material and develop consensus - do you have any good explicit criterion for when to come out of the cupboard and change the article itself ? This kind of system savvy I'm just trying to learn as fast as I can, I was lucky to have a good mentor getting started on the Lamb wave article. I'll come back for another bite over the weekend if not sooner and see if I can do something with your specific questions. Adrian Pollock (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've been making minor edits on wikipedia for a few years, but nothing as large as this. This is an outline of how I'd like to organize our efforts:
- 1) Fill out sections that are clearly incomplete. Address all comments that we've made (aka very rough draft).
- 2) From there, we can rewrite some stuff, and expand or shorten as necessary.
- 3) Insert images, fix up citations, make it look prettier, put in wikilinks, and copy edit.
- 4) Be bold! Put it up onto the main page.
- I don't know if this is standard, but it seems like a good plan. As far as consensus, we seem to be the only two working on this, so a consensus should be easy to reach :). The Wikipedia community can edit other details as soon as we post it. Where else did you see the list of divisions? Joe056 (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I wrote some things that got accidentally erased before I save them. Still struggling with how to structure this thing. So I decided to tabulate short descriptions of what's actually there in the existing subfield articles. That was quite interesting, you can see it at User:Adrian de Physics/sandbox. For me, the absence of a physical acoustics article is a glaring hole and I'm wondering whether we should take some of the things you have written and put them into that - considering this as one of your "1. ...sections that are clearly incomplete".
- There was a nudge from a nameless IP number who wanted to make acoustics a branch of applied mechanics. I didn't agree, it's too broad for that. Trouble is though, I can hear someone saying "well if it's too broad for applied mechanics, isn't it too broad for physics too?" Being a physicist I hate to hear that but must admit he has a point unless you go for the broadest definition of physics. So I'm wondering whether we should advertise it as an "interdisciplinary field" or suchlike. That of course aggravates even more the difficulty of identifying just what are its fundamental concepts ! I think we have to hang loose and let this become clearer, if you ever read "Stranger in a Strange Land" you'll know what I mean. Meanwhile work on smaller pieces that we can solve.
- I see the subfield list comes from the American Physical Society. Maybe it got edited since. I'm in a quandary whether we should aim to hold rigid to a list from an authoriatative source like that, or whether we should consider it up for grabs and anyone can have a go at it. Do you know what a good Wikipedian would think about this ? Adrian Pollock (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- So I think I just wrapped up the rough draft (1). Now we need to revise the parts that need help. Watch out for weasel words. Instead, cite a source. Joe056 (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I came up with the diagram added below, which may do useful service as a unifying fundamental concept. Your emphasis on transduction helped me to come up with this. Transduction is indeed of fundamental importance. Adrian Pollock (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I finished studying the enumeration of subfields (a) in the article, (b) in PACS as referenced in the article, (c) based on the names of the ASA technical committees, (d) googling to get a crude idea of size / recognition of the subfields (e) noting status of subfield Wikipedia articles. This is all in the table in User:Adrian de Physics/sandbox. Conclusion: we are basically in good shape. It was a very good decision of someone to use PACS, it's an impressive resource. Let's stick with those 18 PACS subfields (this also means mergeing back the small, non-PACS "biomedical acoustics" is it) and aspire to get each one covered with an article (many are already). Also I'm all in favor of discussing in the main article a higher-level breakout, a smaller number of broader categories, such as you started in your table. It'll make the subject more approachable. Maybe some refinements, I still haven't dug real deep into your table but am starting to catch up and look at it more often now. Adrian Pollock (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that the article is starting to shape up. All we really lack now are some pretty pictures and references (imho). Let's shoot to finish on February 15th. After that, I will publish this on the main site and we can let our fellow wikipedians have at it. What say you? Joe056 (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Good diagrams Joe ! I resequenced the beginning; below is the draft as it looks today. Also I undid the capitalization in the titles in deference to Wikipedia preferred style. May be a few more things to add but I would have no problem putting it up in the form it is in right now (just delete internal refs to the edits). It's a good step forward. After that we could see about getting the clean-up label removed ? Adrian Pollock (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was amazed at how much of a difference the pictures made myself. I will keep making small changes preparing needed citations, but foresee no need for major changes. I'll put up the site on February 15th. I agree about the cleanup label.Joe056 (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Joe, I made a few small changes. Just two remaining things stick out at me now. One is the reference to Biel at the bottom, it's typographically odd. The other is: I wonder whether the long list of "see also" items could be arranged into columns for better appearance and readability. I'm not very sure/skilled about doing either of these. Are these in your skill set ? If not, I can work on them or ask my adopter for advice. Also, I posted on a higher page our intent to "go public" shortly. Adrian Pollock (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It's up! Joe056 (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Acoustics is the interdisciplinary science that deals with the study of sound, ultrasound and infrasound (all mechanical waves in gases, liquids, and solids). A scientist who works in the field of acoustics is an acoustician. The application of acoustics in technology is called acoustical engineering. There is often much overlap and interaction between the interests of acousticians and acoustical engineers.
Hearing is one of the most crucial means of survival in the animal world, and speech is one of the most distinctive characteristics of human development and culture. So it is no surprise that the science of acoustics spreads across so many facets of our society - music, medicine, architecture, industrial production, warfare and more. Art, craft, science and technology have provoked one another to advance the whole, as in many other fields of knowledge.
The word "acoustic" is derived from the ancient Greek word ακουστός, meaning able to be heard (Woodhouse, 1910, 392). The Latin synonym is "sonic". After acousticians had extended their studies to frequencies above and below the audible range, it became conventional to identify these frequency ranges as "ultrasonic" and "infrasonic" respectively, while letting the word "acoustic" refer to the entire frequency range without limit.