Content deleted Content added
m Fixing Lint errors from Wikipedia:Linter/Signature submissions (Task 31) |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 6:
|currentstatus=FGAN
}}
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=Mid|tech=yes|sci=yes}}
}}
{{Archive box|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1 (2005–2010)]]}}
{{Merged|Artificial atom}}
Line 17 ⟶ 19:
I think that needs to be qualified in some sense, since the dots themselves are obvious not zero dimensional. Perhaps state that "their unique behavior is due (in part) to the relatively small number of atoms they are composed of, and can be explained with models that treat them as zero dimensional". I'm not sure if this proposed statement is actually correct. [[User:Maneesh|Maneesh]] ([[User talk:Maneesh|talk]]) 16:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
:Zero-dimensional is merely a reference to the number of directions in which the confined charge carrier can act as a free carrier. In a similar vein, quantum wires might be known as one-dimensional potential wells, and quantum wells as two-dimensional potential wells. I'm currently looking for a good place to put this but can't decide where would be best.
:While the dots/wires/wells are small, they still have dimensions in the nm range - indeed it's hinted at in the introduction and stated explicitly in the production section. -- <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Newty23125|<
== Developments concerning bulk manufacture ==
Line 51 ⟶ 53:
The figure titled ''"Quantum Dots with emission maxima in a 10-nm step are being produced in a kg scale at PlasmaChem GmbH"'' displays QD solutions producing luminescence from violet (470 nm) to orange (610 nm) and thus has an inaccurate title. However, WikiCommons provides correct description as follows ''"Quantum dots with vivid colours stretching from violet to deep red are being currently manufactured at PlasmaChem GmbH at a large scale"''. The manufacturer [http://www.plasmachem.com/shop/en/hydrophobic-alloyed-zncdses-quantum-dot-kit/356--pl-qd-oa-kit.html data sheet] for whole QD kit validates this.
I suppose a new title ''"Quantum Dots with gradually stepping emission from violet to deep red are being produced in a kg scale at PlasmaChem GmbH"'' [[User:Hardman Feidlimid|Hardman Feidlimid]] ([[User talk:Hardman Feidlimid|talk]]) 21:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
:Be [[WP:BOLD|bold]]: if you see a mistake like this, click "Edit" and change the text so that it is more accurate. [[User:KDS4444|<
== Primary sources are overused in this article ==
The intro paragraph to this article has at least three references (enclosed in "ref" tags) that point to the primary source of the information they are referencing— this is not the way that citations are supposed to be used in Wikipedia. Citations should point to the place where the statement of fact is published or discussed, not to where the actual information itself is published. For example, when I write in an article "John Smith discovered gravity" and I provide a reference for that fact, the reference should point to a source, normally a third party, stating that John Smith did, in fact, discovered gravity, NOT to John Smith's journal article or the book he wrote in which he explained all about the nature of gravity. References should point to where the statement of fact is ''verified'', not to the place where the fact itself is ''discovered'' nor where it was ''first stated''. I know that may seem confusing, but if you can figure out quantum physics then this can't be much harder to grasp![[User:KDS4444|<
:This is a good point. In this particular page, the ref to Reed et al, 1988, as the "primary" source of the phrase "quantum dots" is actually superceed by a previous paper on which Mark is the lead author: Reed et al. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 4(1), Jan/Feb 1986 pp. 358-360. In fact, without actually having gone through the entire set of literature, I'm more confident that this 1986 paper is more believable as the most-extant use of this phrase given that the phrasing in this paper is: "Here we present data on a completely spatially quantized system (which by extrapolation we define as 'quantum dots') where ...". Indeed, the author explicitly notes that it is "defined" here. On the other hand, the paper cited on the present page is merely a parenthetical note in the abstract: "('quantum dot')". [[User:Tjlafave|TJ LaFave]] ([[User talk:Tjlafave|talk]]) 01:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Line 104 ⟶ 106:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brus_equation
The factor in the denominator is 2 in one, 8 in the other, both state that a / r is the radius of the dot. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/134.169.19.27|134.169.19.27]] ([[User talk:134.169.19.27#top|talk]]) 08:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== QD Periodic Table ==
Can someone add more to the the QD Periodic table section? All the images I found didn't explain anything - they pretty much listed a bunch of abbreviations
that were not at all useful. So if someone could clear this up (and list the molecules instead of names that tell you nothing about the chemical itself), that would be very helpful.
== Strange statement/link: For a similar biological technology, see Luciferase. ==
"For a similar biological technology, see Luciferase." I do not see any similarities between these mechanisms. The reverse link from Luciferase to Quantum dots also seems to be wrong. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/141.63.225.199|141.63.225.199]] ([[User talk:141.63.225.199#top|talk]]) 12:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I agree that the link to Luciferase does not belong there and should be removed. If the analogy between the two is made in the literature it could be added (with appropriate citation) further down in the text, but at this prominent place and without explanations it is misplaced and confusing. Likewise the backlink seems unsuitable as luciferase does not only (and not even mostly) have to do with record keeping. [[User:Qcomp|Qcomp]] ([[User talk:Qcomp|talk]]) 10:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
| |||