Talk:Exploding wire method

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry 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.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Exploding Wire Method. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this same phenomena occur under vacuum and/or Argon atmosphere?

Has anyone every tried exploding a wire in an atmosphere free from water vapor? I.e. either vacuum or under Argon atmosphere. I'm very intrigued by the description of this as a "source of high-intensity light". 22:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.139.2 (talk)

I found a 50-year-old study of a side-by-side experiment showing significantly more current/power required to explode a wire under vacuum than under atmosphere. Exploding wires in air and vacuum, Zeitschrift für Physik, B. Stenerhag, S. K. Händel, I. Holmström1, 967, DOI 10.1007/BF01326904. I think this quite interesting that atmosphere appears to facilitate a plasma that excites the explosion at a lower power threshold. Ronnotel (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is contradictory

the lead begins by explaining the thin wire is turned into a conductive plasma. Which makes sense, as plasmas are ionic and hence conductive.

However, the same paragtaph goes on to say in the next sentence or two that the wire is vaporized and the vapor conducts the electricity.

It seems whomever wrote it was conflating vapor/gas with plasma. Without knowing about the topic, it's difficult for me to say which explanation is right.

As I said, logically, plasma makes more sense. But, I don't want to base an edit on just logic or inferences.

I'm also wondering why the electricity even needs to be conducted after the wire has been destroyed. Isn't the point of it to heat the wire enough to detonate the explosive?

Once it's plasma, or vapor or whatever the case may be, the explosive will conceivably detonate. So, why should it matter if the wire still conducts at this point?

The whole section makes little logical sense.

Furthermore, there isn't a single citation to confirm or deny anything that's said in this section. Which doesn't help it's credibility if it's contradictory and illogical as it is.

Persinally, I think a community discussion about rewriting the lead is in order. Then, we can go from there.

VoidHalo (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]