Talk:Rubens tube

Move to Rubens' Tube
Since this takes its name from Heinrich Rubens, should the name of the article be "Rubens Tube" or "Rubens' Tube"? Sciprogrammer 07:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right, moving article now. JeffyP 20:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To be rather technical, proper English grammar dictates that it be "Rubens's Tube" - names that end in 's' still get the apostrophe-s. --70.19.84.104 02:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To be rather technical, proper English grammar dictates that it be "Rubens' Tube". Names that end in 's' have a single apostrophe after them.--24.206.247.77 (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you are absolutely wrong. A tube belonging to Rubens would be Rubens's tube (... to be rather technical, although one can find some grammatical sources which would say Rubens' tube to be rather technical, but those second sources are in the minority as far as I can tell, and they confuse themselves in thinking that the post-apostrophe is due to the letter s rather than from the pluralization). However, regardless of punctuation quibbles, this article is not about Heinrich's personally owned tube. It is about the piece of apparatus named for him, in which his name becomes and adjective, not a proper noun. The article is about "Rubens tube: a tube invented by Rubens". It's not about "Rubens's tube: a tube belonging to Rubens". For examples of similar adjectival constructions, see also literally every other scientific apparatus, theory, and concept which is named after someone. The article should be moved back to "Rubens Tube". However, since 4 other wikipedians above disagreed with me, I won't make the move myslef. Spatrick99 (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This was a mistake. It's a "Bunsen burner", not "Bunsen's burner"; it's "Hawking radiation", not "Hawking's radiation"; and it's a Rubens tube, not Rubens' tube. I have requested a move to the apostrophe-less form again. Simply check the actual literature to see how scientists spell it. Equinox ◑ 14:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Original Research
I know that original research is not allowed here at wikipedia. However, I know I read the part about Ulrich Behn somewhere when writing this article. I'll try and see if I can find it again. So far, the only mention I found was in reference 3 (.doc format), where it specifically says that Heinrich Rubens "[…]profited from Behn`s idea, who had used small flames as sensitive indicators for pressure". At the very least, this shows that Behn came up with the idea for small flames as pressure indicators. Left up for debate is what his first name was and if he indeed did the research at the University of Leipzig. I'll take both these parts out for now, until more evidence is shown. JeffyP 18:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Original Article
Someone wrote an instructable, and even dug out the original 1904 article by Rubens himself ! I've corrected the date and added a Ref. Better images found by URL hacking: My German is poor - have I got this right ? p351 shows a telescopic tube extension to vary the length. It shows flame-maximum at the closed end, which will be a velocity node - no movement, just pressure variation. Footnote credits U.Behn - presumably not the current Ulrich Behn with an email address at uni-leipzig.de ! p352 Maxima are separated by half-wavelengths (λ/2). Oddly, Rubens reports that the flame-maximum is at the closed end (as expected) for loud sounds, but with quiet sounds, the maxima and minima exchange places ! With quiet sounds, the flame-maxima are at the constant-pressure points; loud sounds give maximum flame at lowest-velocity points. It is also found (using a rotating mirror) that the flame goes from oscillating up & down at the frequency of loud sound to a steady flame with quiet sounds. Blocking most of the holes didn't change this behaviour. p353 Below a certain frequency, the dimensions of the tube, the diameter of the holes and their number increase the apparent wavelength compared to free-space. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Expanded Article in "Annalen der Physik"
Flammenröhre für akustische Beobachtungen, H. Rubens, O. Krigar-Menzel (1905) Variation of pressure due to sound ~ 0.005 Atmospheres Maximum speed ~ 2.5 m/s For 1 kHz, max displacement ~ 0.4 mm It seems that the sound pressure can be of the same order as the extra pressure due to the gas over and above atmospheric pressure ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the second picture wrong?
It seems to me that the "lambda" ruler marks up two wavelengths, not one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.99.129.29 (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Ya, I noticed that a while ago, and I plan on fixing it some day soon. I ordered a Rubens' Tube of my own, and I'm going to replace the current pictures with some better ones of my own. JeffyP 00:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the dagram is correct. In a wave, one wavelength is equal to a crest and a trough, or in this case, a comression and a rarefaction. Each "high point" in the Ruben's tube, is an antinode, which flutuates between the compression and rarefaction. Ther are three--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) antinodes to each full wavelength.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 18:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed the diagram is correct - some people who don't understand standing waves assume the speed of sound in propane is halved, but I doubt that !--195.137.93.171 (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the picture is wrong as well. Antinodes are at the greatest amplitudes, positive and negative, to measure across 3 antinodes would still be one cycle, one wavelength, either two peaks and a trough (peak to peak) or two troughs and a peak (trough to trough). The current image suggests one wavelength is five antinodes in length. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Article is inconsistent
In the Explanation section, it states that the maximum of flame is at the node of pressure, while in the next History section it states that the compression increases the flame while rarifaction decreases it. Since compression and rarifaction occur about 400 times a second, this would be invisible if it occured. Ie, the article is internally inconsistant. Then the Talk mentions that there are claims that the lowest point of the flame may not be at a pressure anti-node but depends on the amplitude of the flame. While the state of knowledge could be still unsettled, that does not mean that the article should be confusing. Certainly the last half of the last sentence in History should be removed, and the state of current knowledge should be in the explanation section. This is especially true since the picture of the tube does not seem to have either a minimum or a maximum of the flame at the the closed ends of the tube.

142.103.234.23 (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Rubens' tube. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110718054118/http://www.vuw.ac.nz/scps-demos/demos/Light_and_Waves/SoundFlames/SoundFlames.htm to http://www.vuw.ac.nz/scps-demos/demos/Light_and_Waves/SoundFlames/SoundFlames.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110929204818/http://physicslearning.colorado.edu/website_new/Common/ViewDemonstration.asp?DemoCode=3D30.50 to http://physicslearning.colorado.edu/website_new/Common/ViewDemonstration.asp?DemoCode=3D30.50
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110930144701/http://www.richdunajewski.com/videos/YHpovwbPGEoo to http://www.richdunajewski.com/videos/YHpovwbPGEoo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 05:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Rubens' tube → Rubens tube – Apostrophe is not generally used in academic literature; search Google Books for example, and consider "Bunsen burner", not "Bunsen's burner" Equinox ◑ 14:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * : skimmed the first five refs in the article and they're about split between Rubens tube and Ruben's tube, which I think we would all like to avoid. The first page of a Google Scholar search has six of Rubens, two of, one mix of the two, and one unrelated hit. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This article has been titled Rubens' tube since it was renamed (see ') way back in 2006. If the sources are split and it's 6 of one and a half-dozen of the other, then it's pretty senseless to rename it away from the long-term status quo, isn't it? Someone will just move it back within the next year or two. Let it be.  P.I. Ellsworth '&numsp;- ed.  put'r there 18:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it six of one half-dozen the other? Is there a sample of sources you could pull that's at least half Rubens'? I got 3/10. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 22:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just going by what you wrote above. Sources seem quite torn between Rubens, Ruben's and Rubens'. Sources are what we go by, and if sources' yield is unclear, then we go with what our readers have been reading for many years. We go with the status quo, which in this case is "Rubens' tube". Just checked the MOS and apparently "Rubens's tube" should be a strong consideration under these circumstances. (For some reason this RM keeps bringing the Rubik Cube to mind.Scrumbled Rubik's Cube.jpg)  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 02:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I think there's enough evidence for the move, but I'm not heartbroken about the status quo. "Rubens's" I'd oppose, as it's just too rare in the sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 14:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support. Striking my oppose – don't think this article should have been moved from "Rubens tube" back in '06. Agree that it's high time to remedy that error.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 00:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)