Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxwell's thermodynamic surface

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Shimeru 22:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell's thermodynamic surface[edit]

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

No evidence of notability or of reliable sources that discuss the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This museum exhibit certainly exists. Here is the picture from the Cavendish Laboratory Museum virtual tour. Unsurprisingly for a museum exhibit, it's documented, too. Here is the ACM SIGGRAPH article on it, for example. Here's an article from Virginia Tech, which also has an annotated version of the sculpture. This sculpture is documented in books, too. Did neither of you look at this article's talk page? Uncle G (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this topic is just under the wrong title and written from the wrong viewpoint, since the graphical method is notable (that's the subject of several sources), while the plaster object that illustrates the method isn't. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Important enough, with enough sources, for me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of evidence for this such as Mere Thermodynamics. The material should perhaps be split/merged with Phase diagram#3D phase diagrams and given alternate titles such as Gibbs' surface and P-V-T surface to help our readers find it. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a single sentence in the Phase diagram#3D phase diagrams section would work, saying "An early example of a 3D phase diagram was constructed from plaster by James Maxwell, based on Gibbs' geometric method of representing thermodynamic quantities." It isn't that the thing doesn't exist, or that the topic it illustrates isn't important, it is just that the thing itself isn't the notable part of the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, you've been on your Jihad against my contributions for how many years now? Maxwell's plaster surface is famous among thermodynamics students (and thermodynamics professors), discussed in at least a dozen of books I would guess, and the three existing models are on display case exhibits at Yale (physics department) and Cambridge (Museum at the Cavendish Laboratory). In order to understand the very difficult concept of Gibbs free energy one must be able to understand its interpretation as Gibbs defined it by section AB on figure 3 and as Maxwell sculpted that section on his 3D surface figure.

American engineer Willard Gibbs' 1873 figures two and three (above left and middle) used by Scottish physicist James Maxwell in 1875 to create a three-dimensional entropy (x), volume (y), energy (z) **thermodynamic surface** diagram for water, transposed the two figures of Gibbs (above right) onto the volume-entropy coordinates (transposed to bottom of cube) and energy-entropy coordinates (flipped upside down and transposed to back of cube), respectively, of a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinates; the region AB being the first-ever three-dimensional representation of Gibbs free energy, or what Gibbs called "available energy"; the region AC being its capacity for entropy, what Gibbs defined as "the amount by which the entropy of the body can be increased without changing the energy of the body or increasing its volume.

We also might like to note that Maxwell's drawings for this "non-notable thing", as Vickers calls it, were deemed important enough to be put into the design of the 2005 Gibbs stamp in their series of great American scientists. --Libb Thims (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in my mind, having a concept, person, or work of art on a stamp of a major country denotes notability per se. Not just that, but others have found good sources. They just need to be added and the article fixed up, for it to be rescued. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the stamp illustrates Gibbs' idea of a thermodynamic surface, not the piece of plaster constructed by Maxwell. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Phil Bridger (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of those sources deal with Gibbs' concept of a thermodynamic surface and some mention in passing the fact that the concept was also illustrated in plaster by Maxwell. I think the main problem here is that the article is wrong, Gibbs' surface is a concept (and a very important concept in thermodynamics) it is not the same as the piece of plaster formed by Maxwell to illustrate Gibbs' idea. Perhaps moving the article to Gibbs' thermodynamic surface might solve this problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was careful to include in that list only sources that cover the model. Phil Bridger (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep. No evidence of notability; unsourced article. It seems to me that, as is noted above, all that is really needed is a sentence (in the article describing the surface) pointing out that Maxwell built a model of the surface. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It does seem odd, though, that the effort going into this AfD discussion is an order of magnitude greater than the effort going into the article. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite normal. If you make a contribution to the AFD then you may sure that it will be preserved for all eternity. Make a contribution to the article then it may well be lost because editors like yourself are demanding that it be deleted. The process is quite stupid and wasteful and so sensible editors soon tire of it. This then just leaves zealots and those with axes to grind. See WP:SEP for more comment on this. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added some references that explain the importance of Maxwell's sculptorial exercition and contain further scholarly references. They appear to provide ample material for whoever is so inclined to elevate the article above mere stub status. Having somewhat of a love-hate relationship with thermodynamics (except that the love is missing), I'll gladly leave this work of love to other editors. --Lambiam 03:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That almost convinces me: the first of those references is indeed a non-trivial mention of the sculpture itself. After all, this article, being about the physical plaster object rather than the equations, is a "history of scientific modelling" article, not a "thermodynamics" article, so the sources have to be about the sculpture. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that source "almost convinces" you then why did you !vote "delete" after I had already presented it, along with several similar sources, above? Don't people even read the previous discussion and look at the sources presented before giving their opinion? If not it's a waste of time even looking for sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What finally convinced me was some additional sources I found myself. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is essentially useless without a picture of the model: either a photograph taken at Yale or Cambridge, and uploaded to commons, or a 3D-rendered reconstruction. I've added a sketch of the lines he drew on the surface, which is not quite so good as a picture of the model. I've also fixed some factual errors, and added references. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone might have to check on the appropriate license tag, but the first photograph that I know of, captioned as “The Surface” (photo by James Pickands II), is on page 203 of Muriel Rukeyser’s 1942 book Willard Gibbs American Genius: File:Maxwell thermodynamic surface.png --Libb Thims (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a really great photo. I've added it to the article. The licensing may still need checking. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To assist with that: how did you get the image file (was it from the book?) and does the book have a photo credit giving a date for the photo? And do you know if it's a photo taken in Yale or Cambridge? -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image scanned from book. The photo credit is "James Pickands II" (no date), who seems to be noted for photos in the 1920s. The photo possibly came from the Gibbs collection at Yale, as that is where Rukeyser did most of her research. --Libb Thims (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another photo I know of is on page 87, entitled “Thermodynamic Surface for Water”, showing the surface from four different angles, of Lynde Wheeler’s 1951 book Josiah Willard Gibbs: the History of a Great Mind. --Libb Thims (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be a persistent myth that Maxwell's surface is the thermodynamic surface of water, even though he says it isn't, quite. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable topic, well written, well sourced, nice illustrations. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gandalf61 summed it up pretty nicely. Jenks24 (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.