Talk:Kirkendall effect
Add topic | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
copyright problem
[edit]First paragraph is, except for a tiny change to hide deletion of an illustration, an exact copy of the entry under this title in [Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia] (first edition was 1938, renewal of copyright can be inferred from the fact that the 9th edition is still being published) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.113.191 (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Obituary
[edit]- Ernest Kirkendall, 1914 to 2005, obituary posted by Wayne State University.
"Purple plague"
[edit]This related topic might be deserving of its own article, but I don't have enough expertise to write it. DFH 18:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Stub category
[edit]As there is no separate stub category for chemical engineering topics, I used the chemistry stub. DFH 18:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Discovered by whom?
[edit]"The Kirkendall effect was named after Dr. Michelle O. Kirkwad..." is nonsense, as indicated in the obituary above and in Nakajima's article in JOM. Would the author of this page please give credit where it is due, to Ernest Kirkendall. His Manliness (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Unclear/confusing
[edit]What does the migration of zinc relative to copper have to do with molybdenum migration within the alloy? Explain, please. Madgenberyl (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Never mind; there was a confusion between the effect itself and a method to observe it; it's been clarified now. The article still needs a discussion of the underlying mechanism and the previous state of understanding. Madgenberyl (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Recent reversion
[edit]@Fermiboson, your recent reversion of the addition by @DELL320 seems a little harsh. Of 5 scanners that I routinely use, only ZeroGPT seems to consider that much of this was LLM. The science is right, the sources exist, although I would have used a better cited review such as doi:10.1002/smll.200700382 instead of 10. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
- NOLLM doesn’t say “it’s fine if the edit is good enough” and in this case there is no doubt that this is a NOLLM violation. However no objection to you reinstating parts of the text according to your expert judgement as your own. Fermiboson (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
- Done. Perhaps too short, I am overloaded at the moment. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2026 (UTC)