Talk:Talbot effect

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Engineering Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering 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.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. ‹See TfM› Physics Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was in great shape when I found it. I edited the article for readability and punctuation. I added the Engineering banner with a class of GA to this discussion page.

Michael.Forman (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A link is posted to a undergrad thesis; (i) This link is dead, (ii) Is this thesis a useful addition if it were to work, or did someone just put a link to his own thesis online?

Unfortunately the original Talbot article is nowhere to be found on the net. 131.180.33.144 (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the thesis works for me, although I didn't put it on there when I first wrote the article... looks like someone did indeed add their own thesis. Having said that, it is relevant to the article. When you say "the original Talbot article" is nowhere to be found on the net, do you mean the real original by Henry Talbot, or do you mean the article from which I lifted the contents of this page? That was my own Masters project report - it's not on the internet because I don't have anywhere to upload it! Chwirkytheappleboy (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text does not match up well with the picture. The second strongest row is 2:1 with the strongest, but the third strongest is 3:2 with the second. The text on the other hand talks about about 2:1 then 4:2 and so on. While it is possible to identify in the picture what the text is referring to, one has to realize what is going on to make this connection. Would it not be better to describe the most visible ratios in the picture, rather than skipping over those and mentioning only the powers of 2? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]