User talk:Bruce Bathurst

Contributions to the Wikipedia
Being retired and separated from the primary literature, Bruce doesn't feel sufficiently competent to contribute to articles; so he contributes to their discussions. He has thus far aggravated the authors of the following topics, in the topics' Talk pages: Geologist (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk:Gibbs' phase rule
 * Talk:Bowen's reaction series
 * Talk:Reversible reaction
 * Talk:OS/2
 * Talk:Hard disk drive
 * Talk:Volcanic arc
 * Talk:Plate tectonics
 * Talk:Case modding
 * Talk:Natural sciences
 * Talk:Timeline of the history of scientific method
 * Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Geology
 * Talk:Equivalence class
 * Talk:Equivalence class/Comments
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 15‎ (retracted upon request by person with differing view)
 * Talk: Scientific law
 * Talk:Scientific method
 * Talk:Dinosaur
 * Talk:Row echelon form
 * Talk:Physical law

Bowen's rxn series/weathering rates
I agree with you about the generality of the statement and the lack of references. But in terms of the "lack of evidence or fact" that you refer to, I would point towards an analysis by Ben Edwards and Kelly Russell in the mid-90's. They compiled existing data on the kinetics of dissolution of some silicate minerals in silicate melts and found a relationship between the "affinity" (diff in chemical potential btwn products and reactants) and dissolution rates, but did not offer a substantive theoretical treatment. See this link http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~krussell/papers/papers.html and look at Edwards and Russell (1996). In addition, Tony Lasaga provides a discussion on the relationship between chemical potential differences and reaction kinetics in "Kinetic Theory in the Earth Sciences", for example chapter five. All other things being equal, I do find that a link between "distance from equilibrium" as you put it, and reaction kinetics is aesthetically pleasing. :) Cheers, Rickert 08:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Science categories
Hi Bruce, I just read your reflections on "natural classification of some sciences" that you posted in the discussion on Science categories, and I'm wondering if you would consider moving your comment to a different page (perhaps the talk page for WikiProject Science??), because it doesn't directly address the specific issues at hand in the CFD discussion, but rather a much larger and rather more abstract question that falls outside the scope of the CFD. I'm just concerned that the sheer length of your comment could distract from the more focused discussion that is taking place within the CFD. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, Bruce -- glad you understood my concerns. You're right about the categories being there to help readers find what they're looking for expeditiously. So when it comes to the science categories the result is something of a hybrid, if you will. In any event, there's a lot of work to be done. Hey, I hope your pneumonia has let up some by now -- that can't be fun! Best, Cgingold (talk) 12:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur discussion
Hello, Bruce;

Thank you for starting the discussion! As one of the primary editors on the dinosaur article, I can't always see how it will be read and understood by others, so it's very helpful when knowledgeable people outside of paleontology bring up issues. I was thinking about definitions today when I was looking through one of Alfred Romer's textbooks from the 1950s, and he wrote about how "dinosaur" was actually an unnatural term for saurischians and ornithischians, and that these two groups were not closely related. Of course, he didn't have the benefit of the discoveries and research of the last few decades, but who am I to say that something won't turn up that throws a wrench in the works? I can sympathize with wanting firmer definitions; I'm dreading what to do with Iguanodon when one particular paper comes out in the near future.

I'm glad that your granddaughter is happy. She's certainly got an advanced understanding of the field for her age! J. Spencer (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello again;


 * Thanks for the compliments! As long as the article is attracting productive discussions, I'm happy (I've taken a break from Dinosaur for a bit; it's such a large article that it only gets tackled in chunks, and I've worked on most of the chunks that I'm familiar with). J. Spencer (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: No original research discussion
there is no place to publish lectures
 * FYI... today, many professors are now publishing their lectures as podcasts and delivering them to students either on iTunes U or through a university website as supplemental notes for review. Some professors combine audio of the lecture with video of notes/slides/figures, however on the iPhone/iPod Touch, this can be difficult to read.  Newer devices should solve this problem.  Other professors simply film the entire lecture, but this takes up more space on portable devices than a smaller audio file.  The point is that lectures are now a commodity. Viriditas (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Century Dictionary
I agree with your comments about the Century article. Long time later, I have fixed it. Xerlome (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Ternary (ideal?) mixtures obtained from non-ideal binaries
Hi, Bruce Bathurst! I notice you've created Schreinemaker%27s_analysis and you are interested in thermodynamics and phase diagrams. How do you consider in this context the sources mentioned at Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2017_October_21 for non-ideal ternary mixtures/systems?--82.137.8.95 (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)