702:
Checked on google, google news, and google scholar, and I can't find any information about these two topics other than this article. I'm not sure what's written in that textbook, but it could easily be the author's own neologisms for the words. I doubt he would expect the physics community at large
446:
Tell me what I can do to prove this article's crediblity, I could maybe post some of the math mentioned, although I have very little knowledge of latex and it would take a while. Also, the differential equations are somewhat complicated and long, which is why I ommitted them. Perhaps you would like
587:
The pdf conversion is incorrect for the above link (it shows a time dependent force); the actual scan does indeed give a problem from a textbook discussing cubic restoring force as being given by a "sprong". I would not say that this is really encyclopedic coverage - the authors' needed a relatively
279:
are less than elegant titles. Nonlinear dynamics (sometimes likened to the study of non-human animals) is important, but I am not at present convinced that this particular example is better treated as a unified article on the differential equation or if we should just mention it as a model system in
575:
Also, I've been surprised in my recent studies to the degree of information that is NOT available on the internet from google. For example, I had to provide a mechanism for the dehydration of glucose by sulfuric acid to yield carbon and water(for a totally unrelated class). This reaction appears in
571:
I do encourage you to check out the Knight textbook I cited if you get the chance though, it's probably the most understandable thing mentioning this. I'll search for journals as well, it's just kind of late now, but I could go to the library for 20 minutes tommorow. As for lecture notes, they are
526:
its being mentioned nowhere. Also, it isn't a matter of whether you've provide enough information about the topic: showing more math would be great if it's a notable topic, but won't help with the notability issue. Now, if you have textbooks to cite, that might be adequate, provided that they meet
384:
Check the textbook, just because something isn't online doesn't mean it's not worthy. I attended a few lectures discussing sprongs and related materials, the others already had articles (ie constant force springs, metamaterials), but the sprong is a fairly recent addition, maybe I can provide more
490:
find two authoritative widely used textbooks. Or perhaps some published lecture notes on the web by authoritative professors? With respect to the MOS page on neologism, I point out the the MOS is not where notability is decided. I have proposed a modification on the talk page there to bring it in
442:
Lazgo, it appears that the "spryng" article seems to have compromised the credibility of mine. May I mention that while sprong is indeed a notable concept, a spryng seems to be nothing but a copy-paste of my article. While it is possible to manipulate three dimensional geometry to achieve such a
450:
I agree that googling this concept it indeed appears to be made up, but you have to realize this is the initial reason I made the article. Please tell me what I can do to prove its notability, or as you say, prove that it is not a neologism or made up. Perhaps I can post the original discussion
293:
579:
Anyway, if you don't feel that
Knowledge could use an article about something like this, I understand, I just felt it didn't get enough coverage. I don't see the harm in keeping it though, the information is all accurate, and it's a neat concept despite the issues we're having regarding its
557:
Lazgo, I understand your concerns. The thing is, I'll be honest with you: this is somewhat of an esoteric concept, I think the professors just give us this idea to help us practice with our TI-84's and get us thinking about the nature of materials. That being said, it is mentioned in a few
562:, this is similar to an assignment I had to do, the kx^4 spring was proven to be infeasible due to it violating the second law of thermodynamics (thres both a logical and mathematic explanation for this), I think he just tries avoiding the jargon as it's easily understood without a name.
572:
not available to the public, I'm not sure how i'd go about citing them? Do I cite my professor or what? And the fact that they're inaccessible makes it inverifiable...maybe I could post them somewhere but they're copyrighted, I'll just email my prof and ask where he got the info.
331:
I cannot find either of these systems treated in
Goldstein (ISBN 0201657023) or Arfken & Weber (ISBN 0120598256), indicating that neither is hugely important to modern physics. Perhaps materials engineering or aeronautics source would be better.
521:
Unfortunately, the word "notability" as used on
Knowledge is misleading because of the ambiguity of the word. If it isn't talked about anywhere, than by Knowledge's definition, it isn't notable. It isn't a matter of demonstrating its significance
566:
534:
being a separate issue. I believe the deciding administrator here would have the option of finding in favor of keeping your article and deleting the other, if the consensus should suggest that to be the most appropriate outcome.
648:
Ddawkins, you obviously didn't read the discussion very thoroughly...yes I've been slacking off a bit with finding sources, tommorow for sure, not trying to postpone anything, I'm just incredibly busy :\. --Albi
303:
and something made of matter). A solid reference to a well-developed and decently cited article on the use of this system in teaching or finding it in a standard mathematical handbook or two would push me to
558:
encyclopedias specifically about materials engineering, I'm kind of perplexed as to why it isn't in google as well. I did find an online discussion of sprongs, although he does not mention it by name:
428:. Also, you wrote in the article that the concept is "popular in materials engineering", but evidently not yet popular enough for anyone to have mentioned it yet anyplace that Google has indexed.
567:
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:OvflOrCvnO8J:www.gfy.ku.dk/~pditlev/fysik1/Knight_kap11.pdf+%22a+clever+engineer%22+%22sprong%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
588:
simple analytically solvable system, and chose the name to suggest to students the techniques presumably used in the preceding chapter to derive the simple harmonic oscillator. -
127:
211:
576:
many chemistry books as it's not very complicated, but the mechanism is not posted ANYWHERE by googling, but a quick trip to the library found it quite easily.
416:
textbook or whether the concepts they describe aren't "worthy" under someone's definition. The issues I cited related to
Knowledge's guidelines explained in
267:, but cubic restoring force actually comes up enough that it may be worth discussing the general case with reference to specific examples. The term
527:
the requirements. Though I wonder, if the topic is discussed in several textbooks, how has any discussion of it managed to avoid being on the Web?
491:
line with general policy and guidelines. Finding some concept to be widely used is not OR, just assembling the material for an article.
284:
656:
620:
280:
relevant application-specific articles (especially wherever aerodynamic drag and vibration in wings is treated). Example citations:
17:
594:
366:
342:
314:
239:
467:
401:
451:
between Celaj and Knight? Just give me some ideas, I was shocked to find this article nominated for deletion. -Albi
290:
154:
149:
94:
89:
299:, where a cubic term is added to the linear restoring force as a first approximation to the difference between an
727:
158:
98:
36:
336:, you say that you attended a few relevant lectures - perhaps the presenters have published notable material? -
726:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
708:
660:
141:
81:
618:
443:
dependence on length, a spryng has no clear way of doing this, and furthermore seems to be plagiarized.
296:
686:
652:
638:
540:
455:
433:
417:
389:
271:
does not seem to be in wide circulation, so I would prefer to rename the article; on the other foot,
220:
196:
421:
704:
589:
361:
337:
309:
234:
85:
712:
690:
664:
642:
622:
599:
559:
544:
502:
471:
437:
405:
371:
347:
319:
244:
224:
200:
63:
615:
463:
397:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
531:
425:
188:
77:
69:
56:
682:
634:
536:
429:
216:
192:
498:
264:
184:
287:
459:
393:
333:
281:
703:
to use them, since it's apparant that they aren't a part of the physics lexicon.
175:
115:
145:
51:
609:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
565:
Also, here's a rather low level textbook that mentions the idea by name:
493:
183:
Non-notable topic, not found with Google or Google
Scholar, possible
137:
580:
notability. -Albi Oops, forgot to log in. Last edit is indeed me.
720:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
233:
both - nonlinear systems that nobody else bothers to discuss. -
560:
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-149740.html
412:
The issue isn't whether or not someone used these terms in
171:
167:
163:
122:
111:
107:
103:
614:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
447:me to cite more textbooks that mention this idea?
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
730:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
212:list of Science-related deletion discussions
295:(although some of these actually deal with
206:
48:. No prejudice towards future notability.
210:: This debate has been included in the
7:
633:No independent sources. No brainer.
530:Understood, what you've said about
681:. So my bad in that sense, yes. -
24:
263:The name is certainly covered by
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
713:22:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
691:11:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
665:03:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
643:08:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
623:04:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
372:23:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
348:17:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
64:02:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
600:18:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
545:01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
503:22:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
472:20:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
438:19:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
406:19:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
320:18:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
245:18:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
225:17:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
201:15:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
677:. I haven't even looked up
747:
723:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
356:Absent better sources,
273:cubic restoring force
673:To clarify, delete
385:references? -Albi
44:The result was
655:comment added by
625:
598:
475:
458:comment added by
409:
392:comment added by
370:
346:
318:
243:
215:
738:
725:
667:
613:
611:
592:
474:
452:
408:
386:
364:
340:
312:
297:spring hardening
237:
179:
161:
133:Also nominating:
125:
119:
101:
61:
59:
54:
34:
746:
745:
741:
740:
739:
737:
736:
735:
734:
728:deletion review
721:
650:
607:
453:
387:
152:
136:
121:
92:
76:
73:
57:
52:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
744:
742:
733:
732:
716:
715:
696:
695:
694:
693:
646:
645:
627:
626:
612:
604:
603:
602:
556:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
528:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
448:
444:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
351:
350:
323:
322:
260:Neutral sprong
258:, but for now
249:
248:
227:
181:
180:
134:
131:
72:
67:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
743:
731:
729:
724:
718:
717:
714:
710:
706:
705:Themfromspace
701:
698:
697:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
666:
662:
658:
654:
644:
640:
636:
632:
629:
628:
624:
621:
619:
617:
610:
606:
605:
601:
596:
591:
586:
583:
582:
581:
577:
573:
569:
568:
563:
561:
546:
542:
538:
533:
529:
525:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
504:
500:
496:
495:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
449:
445:
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
418:WP:Notability
415:
411:
410:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
383:
382:
373:
368:
363:
359:
355:
354:
353:
352:
349:
344:
339:
335:
330:
327:
326:
325:
324:
321:
316:
311:
307:
302:
298:
294:
291:
288:
285:
282:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
261:
257:
256:Delete spryng
253:
252:
251:
250:
247:
246:
241:
236:
232:
228:
226:
222:
218:
213:
209:
205:
204:
203:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
177:
173:
169:
165:
160:
156:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
132:
129:
124:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
60:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
722:
719:
699:
678:
674:
657:70.48.229.93
647:
630:
616:Juliancolton
608:
584:
578:
574:
570:
564:
555:
537:—Largo Plazo
523:
492:
430:—Largo Plazo
422:WP:Neologism
413:
357:
328:
305:
301:ideal spring
300:
276:
272:
268:
259:
255:
254:
230:
229:
217:—Largo Plazo
207:
193:—Largo Plazo
182:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
700:Delete both
651:—Preceding
454:—Preceding
388:—Preceding
358:delete both
306:keep sprong
683:Ddawkins73
635:Ddawkins73
426:WP:MADEUP
189:WP:MADEUP
653:unsigned
590:Eldereft
468:contribs
456:unsigned
402:contribs
390:unsigned
362:Eldereft
338:Eldereft
310:Eldereft
277:x spring
235:Eldereft
128:View log
585:Comment
524:despite
460:AlB1337
394:AlB1337
334:AlB1337
329:Comment
155:protect
150:history
95:protect
90:history
679:Sprong
675:Spryng
631:Delete
532:Spryng
269:sprong
265:WP:NEO
231:Delete
185:WP:NEO
159:delete
138:Sprong
123:delete
99:delete
78:Spryng
70:Spryng
46:delete
595:cont.
367:cont.
343:cont.
315:cont.
240:cont.
176:views
168:watch
164:links
126:) – (
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
709:talk
687:talk
661:talk
639:talk
541:talk
499:talk
464:talk
434:talk
398:talk
360:. -
308:. -
221:talk
208:Note
197:talk
172:logs
146:talk
142:edit
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
494:DGG
414:one
275:or
187:or
58:ykh
53:kur
711:)
689:)
663:)
641:)
543:)
501:)
470:)
466:•
436:)
424:,
420:,
404:)
400:•
292:,
289:,
286:,
283:,
223:)
214:.
199:)
191:.
174:|
170:|
166:|
162:|
157:|
153:|
148:|
144:|
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
707:(
685:(
659:(
637:(
597:)
593:(
539:(
497:(
462:(
432:(
396:(
369:)
365:(
345:)
341:(
317:)
313:(
242:)
238:(
219:(
195:(
178:)
140:(
130:)
120:(
118:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.