Contents

Talk:Cavity ring-down spectroscopy

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

Spectroscopy (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spectroscopy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SpectroscopyWikipedia:WikiProject SpectroscopyTemplate:WikiProject SpectroscopySpectroscopy articles 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 may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve ittomake it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (September 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

surely any article about something called 'cavity ring down spectroscopy' isn't going to be read by a general audience?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.81.111 (talk • contribs)

While this kind of article will most likely not be read by someone with absolutely no scientific knowledge, it is possible that someone with basic knowledge of related concepts may visit the page out of curiosity or in pursuit of information (actually the same thing, I suppose).

In any case, if the article is too technical, then these kinds of users will be forced to search around for information to explain the article, wasting their time, when instead the article could be written in such a way as to explain itself.

Another way to look at it: if the article is written in such a way that the experts that already know the data are the only ones that can read the data, what is the point of having the article in the first place? Flash cards would be more efficient. When teaching, teach. 209.173.109.224 (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be cavity ring-down spectroscopy (with a hyphen)?--Srleffler (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cavity ring-down spectroscopy holds promise for determining whether methane gas on Mars is caused by a biological or nonbiological source. Currently a CRDS device small enough to work on a future Mars lander is under development by NASA. This would be a good article addition and is worthy of a new section.

Sean7phil (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are published sources available, feel free to write something about it. If nothing has been published on it yet, we should wait a bit.--Srleffler (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]