Contents

Talk:Spectrometer

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spectrometer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This  level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Optics (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Optics, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.OpticsWikipedia:WikiProject OpticsTemplate:WikiProject OpticsOptics articles

Spectrometer should redirect to spectroscopy to avoid redundancy. This is what is done for mass spectrometer, NMR spectrometer, X-ray spectrometer, etc. --Kkmurray (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, I disagree. Spectroscopy is the field; a spectrometer is the measuring instrument. The former can assume the existance of the instrument; the latter should go into detail about how the instrument works. Glrx (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A spectrometer is what you do spectroscopy with; I don't see how to describe spectroscopy without describing the spectrometer. Possibly spectrometer should be an overview of the different spectrometer types (like spectrograph), but it shouldn't duplicate the detailed discussion of theory and applications of spectroscopy. --Kkmurray (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many ways to make a spectrograph. Pin hole v slit. Prism v diffraction grating. Diffraction gratings have limited range, so a few can be used to get a broader range. Refraction v. reflection. Detector can be a single photomultipler tube or a linear CCD array. One can move the prism or one can move the detector. The light path is often folded to make a more compact instrument. Imaging optics can be unusual. Calibration is also an issue: transmission attenuation varies with wavelength. Those details are important to the instrument but not essential to the field; the field can assume the instrument exists; the field is interested in the conclusions that can be made from the measurements. Glrx (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above statements that there should be a separate article for spectrometers (the instruments), and to highlight different types, uses, and applications to various fields of study

edit: added a bit of history and definitions, going to change the summary Popcrate (talk)

I am concerned that the edits you are making would be valuable for the optical spectrometer article but are inappropriate for this article. The spectrometer article has been used to encompass the range of instruments that use that label and what they have in common. The recent edits shift the emphasis to the optical spectrometer alone. Please take a look at the optical spectrometer article, and I'd be happy to discuss if you feel the previous separation of topics is problematic. ronningt (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you mention that... I too, am also concerned that I am making edits that are narrowly focused on optical spectrometer. That being said.. This article does need some help. I definitely want to discuss where to take this article to make it more beneficial for reading. Such as: How much to write about each different spectrometer, and how many spectrometers (or categories of spectrometers) to mention? Popcrate (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to build on the edits to the introduction to make it clearer and more valuable to readers. I don't find the current image useful at all, so I will keep my eyes open for a better option, and I am open to contributions. Any of the topics now touched on in the introduction could be expanded on in the main article. The instrumentation itself is a fascinating side of spectroscopy that could be developed on here. I was able to quickly find dedicated articles for types of spectrometers that are not linked to from here and are, therefore, not being put into a general framework that this page could offer. ronningt (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nasa has a lot of great pictures, and almost all of them are released into public domain. Chemistry & Camera (ChemCam) - Mars Science Laboratory <- Check out this random example (also look at the other pages that it links to, there are more spectrometers and instruments). Popcrate (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do like that image of a spectrum. I also like the spectrometer portion of this image [1], but the rest of the diagram around it would be too confusing. I'll explore the NASA pages some more and see if they have a very basic spectrometer that is public domain. ronningt (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Spectrometer for Alloy Analysis.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The spectrum shown here (of a D2 lamp from UV to NIR) does not show units for the vertical axis. This is an embarrassment for a spectrometry article, since the shape changes so much depending on the units. Most likely the units are proportional to photon count, rather than Watts, giving the spectral range of the measurement. Does anyone have a spectrum available to replace this which has properly labelled axes? NH 00:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanHagen (talk • contribs)

The axes are properly labeled: wavelength vs. counts, both in linear units. In this case, "counts" might be photons or they might be ADUs (what comes out of an amplifier), but that difference isn't relevant to this article. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, in modern use of the two terms, this has nothing to do with "looking vs. measuring". Spectro*scopy* applies to all technologies that "use light" and electromagnetic spectra. For example, Raman spectroscopy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_spectroscopy: obviously nobody looks at the spectrum, it is recorded. Similarly, NMR spectroSCOPY (not -metry), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance_spectroscopy. In contrast, spectro*metry* refers to those techniques that do not record an electromagnetic spectrum, but some other spectrum: Most importantly, mass spectrometry (records some derived physical property such as flight-of-time vs. intensity), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_spectrometry. Just look at the corresponding Wikipedia articles. 2001:638:1558:E7C0:1533:4850:EC3F:3B8B (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]