Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Microwaved DVD

Microwaved DVD
Place a CD or DVD in a microwave oven for 5 seconds, and you get some interesting phenomena. Induced current heats up the metal, vaporizing it in places. Current then passes through this gas, creating sparks, which leave their paths on the disk. As paths come together, islands of untouched metal remain, and if these islands are too large, become split by more paths. Fractal and azimuthal branching patterns result.

The first image shows off the full effect, while the second is the result of quick timing on my part, and shows exactly how these paths form, as well as much clearer examples of fractal branching. These pictures are currently featured in fractal and microwave oven, and there are probably a few other appropriate articles. - brian0918  &#153;  09:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) --Electricmoose 12:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) 
 * Nominate and support. - brian0918  &#153;  09:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support interesting picture, support 1st pic more than 2nd, should be featured picture.
 * Support #1, but the pic needs to illustrate an article (a criteria for featuring). Circeus 14:31, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've placed the 2nd pic in Fractal but the first can be there instead if it comes to that. -- brian0918 &#153;  16:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's also featured in Microwave oven now. -- brian0918  &#153;  18:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - ordinary. Lupin 15:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that it's impossible for pictures of certain things to ever be a featured picture? We we through the same ordeal with Featured picture candidates/Lincoln cent -- brian0918  &#153;  15:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No. If you re-read my extensive one-word critique above, you'll find that nowhere do I put this argument forward. Lupin 20:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So you're suggesting that you would support a picture of a DVD for featured picture status, provided that it was more striking/beautiful/etc? -- brian0918  &#153;  20:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Naturally, I would support a picture of any object, provided it met the criteria for my support. I would of course have to see the picture in question to be able to make that judgement. Lupin 21:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, nice --SPUI (talk) 17:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, picture is interesting - it's a DVD, sure, but it's not as if it's a picture of it in a DVD player or something. Yelyos 18:16, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Interesting picture, but does not illustrate an article. Denni &#9775; 18:29, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
 * The picture is currently featured in Fractal and Microwave oven under the appropriate sections. -- brian0918 &#153;  18:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Placing these photos with these articles is a bit of a stretch, IMO, since their relation to fractals is tangential at best and to microwave ovens not at all. My vote does not change. Denni &#9775; 03:28, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
 * Did you notice where in the articles I placed the image? For fractals, I placed it in the gallery of examples of fractals occurring by natural or artificial means.  Its relation to fractals is not tangential.  The arc paths on the CD form by fractal branching, in the same way that the other examples of fractals on that page form.  In the microwave oven article, it's in the section which talks about electric arcs caused by placing metal in the microwave oven.  You can go to the articles and read for yourself and determine if they illustrate those sections. -- brian0918  &#153;  03:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I did, prior to making the last comment. My sentiment remains the same. Denni &#9775; 23:52, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be difficult, but maybe you should be submitting to commons:Commons:Featured pictures. That is supposed to be a gallery of striking, beautiful, etc. pictures.  This is supposed to be a gallery of pictures that illustrate articles well and are striking, beautiful, etc..  I don't really think it's appropriate to nominate a picture here hoping someone will find an appropriate page and integrate it.  I think pictures shouldn't be submitted here unless (or until) they illustrate an article well; we can then go see how much it helps the article.  (The Chopin photo is a good example: it's ugly, but it's the only picture of him there is).  This is not stated in the instructions for this page, but perhaps it should be added (after suitable discussion). --Andrew 22:13, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * The image is featured at fractal and microwave oven as I stated above, in the appropriate sections. Several pictures have become FP here which are still not in articles. This one is in articles.  -- brian0918  &#153;  22:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Doesn't strike me as that interesting. Seems to have been shoe-horned into articles. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  04:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * See my comments above. -- brian0918  &#153;  04:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can read thankyou. You don't have to have a comeback for everyone who disagrees with your nomination. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  20:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, your statement was so short and so incorrect that I figured you had no clue what was going on. -- brian0918  &#153;  20:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The general etiquette here is to make all your points in your vote, and have a certain amount of respect for other people's votes. Assuming that every person who disagrees with you "has no clue what [is] going on" is going to lose you a lot of good will. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  01:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I really like the pictures, but I also somewhat agree with Denni, ed_g2s and Andrew. The images are featured in articles, but they don't illustrate them very well. They are not very good illustrations of fractals, because we have to look in the details to actually see fractal patterns. Also, it is a little strange, when we look at the article microwave oven, and the only picture we see apart from the oven is a burnt DVD! --Bernard Helmstetter 15:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The lines on the DVD form through fractal branching. Not just the small lines, all of them.  The larger squares become divided, and divided again. The smaller fractals of which you speak are just what you more commonly think of in association with the word "fractal".  As for the microwave, I'm not responsible for the lack of other images in the article, and I think people are more interested in the text than the pictures.  In any case, the picture is perfect for the section.  The only thing that might be better would be a photo of the DVD as it is being irradiated. -- brian0918  &#153;  16:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, a photo of a DVD being irradiated, that would even better! There is one animated gif in, but it is low quality. Apart from this &mdash; The lines on the DVD are fractal only in a weak sense of the term. A fractal must have infinite detail. Here, what we first see is a slightly random but mostly regular grid pattern, and then only about 2 or 3 levels of self-similarity. There are only a few areas that really look like true fractals. Would you suggest that the infinite details are too small to be seen on the photo? I am not even sure that they exist. In my opinion, these images are not so interesting because they illustrate fractals or explain the workings of a microwave oven. What is most interesting is the physical process of the DVD being irradiated. There is only a small explanation of it in the wiki, and it is in the info of the image. I am asking myself questions like "why would microwaves induce currents in the aluminium layer? Why shaped this way?" and I cannot find any answer in the wiki, so I am a little unsatisfied. --Bernard Helmstetter 17:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You're only going to get infinite detail in a theoretical (ie: mathematical) fractal. None of the other examples at fractal have infinite details either, but they're all good examples, because they were all constructed with a simple fractal pattern in mind.  In the case of the DVD, as I stated in the beginning, arcs trace out nonconductive paths (where the aluminum has been vaporized), and once those paths come together, they split the non-vaporized parts up into islands.  So, the whole surface gets divided into smaller surfaces. If these islands are too big, arcs can form again, and you get those islands dividing up into smaller islands, and so on.  -- brian0918  &#153;  20:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the patterns are, while ostensibly fractal in nature, not strikingly visible. The photo quality is great, and the phenomenon is interesting enough, but the image itself simply doesn't hit the striking/titillating/whatever holistic category we judge by quite on the head. Matthewcieplak 09:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support 1st, interesting subject, great image; I don't think it's too much of a stretch to include it on the pages it is on now, though perhaps an article more specifically related to this effect would be helpful? --Spangineer &#8734; 12:07, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not interesting enough for a featured picture. Plus looks out of place on the fractal and microwave pages. Janderk 20:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yes it's a fractal and yes it's made in a microwave, but I just don't find it that fascinating. I've seen prettier/more illustrative fractals around. Enochlau 10:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. They show what happens but they aren't very special. Could we have one with more fractals? Jonas Olson 15:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * All of the lines are fractals, they just don't look like the fractals you're used to. I think that's something everyone's getting confused about. If you want traditional fractals, I think you have to microwave a real CD/DVD, not a CD-R/DVD-R. -- brian0918  &#153;  15:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about that? The pattern on the discs doesn't show the self-similarity you would expect, other than in small areas. The big problem is perhaps that the outer-most layers are coming off in large pieces. Would that be different in the case of, as you call it, a real CD or DVD? I have CD:s to spare, let's see, what would it take to save the microwave oven from damage? Something that can absorb the waves so they won't overheat the magnetron, right? In that case a glass of water would do, unless perhaps that spoils the effect on the CD. What do you say? Jonas Olson 20:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The azimuthal and circular patterns on the DVD are created the same way that fractals are. Think of the DVD as one big metal island.  Current can pass through the whole island.  Eventually certain spots get so hot that the metal is vaporized, allowing current to pass through the vapor.  This creates the trails that you see, where the metal is gone.  When you get 4 lines coming together, it creates a smaller metal island.  This happens all over the DVD, turning it from one big metal island into several small ones.  If the small islands are still relatively large, more hot spots will start and those islands will be cut into smaller islands in the exact same manner.  This happens over and over again, islands being split up into smaller bits, until it gets too small or I turn off the microwave.  That's why I thought the DVD was a good illustration for Fractal, because it illustrates fractal patterns that you don't normally think of as fractal patterns.  -- brian0918  &#153;  21:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a glass of water will work. I don't bother because mine's a dorm microwave.  I'm not sure if it'll work on all CDs.  You probably need an older, high quality professional CD, not these newfangled el cheapo ones. -- brian0918  &#153;  21:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't know there were different types, or qualities. And I'm not talking about CD-R:s, obviously. Those I have here right now are from 1998. Old enough? Jonas Olson 11:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The only way to find out is to put it in the microwave. It only takes a couple seconds.  You should turn off the microwave after the first burst of arcs. -- brian0918  &#153;  13:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll try that, unless someone else beats me there. Jonas Olson 19:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * +6/-7/1 BrokenSegue 13:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)