 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
"The Bethe formula is sometimes called "Bethe-Bloch formula", but this is misleading (see below)." I have impression that Wikipedia attempts to improve the reality here, instead of reporting the facts. Even if the argumentation for using "Bloch" instead of "Bethe-Bloch" name is convincing, I find the sentence quoted above not true. Definitely most of the time I can hear or read "Bethe-Bloch formula" rather than "Bethe formula".
It's great that Wikipedia points that the name isn't correct, but if you want to promote better name, you should clearly mark it as a promotion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.0.84.104 (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Also, does the low-velocity limit really need a reference? It's pretty trivial to see from the original equation. Charles Baynham (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Apologies if this is wrong, in section 'The Formula' shouldn't the denominator in the formula given for the electron density of a substance include the substance's molar mass? David Brightly 86.4.250.43 (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with a lot on this page, as the importance of Bloch's contributions are completely downplayed when they are in fact noteworthy. According to Bohr (Mat. Fys. Medd. 18 No.8, 1948) the treatment of the problem by Bloch tackled the issue of the intermediate energy region where neither the low nor the high energy treaments by Bethe and Bohr were valid. Also, Ziegler (see SRIM.org and the various versions of his work on the Stopping and Range of Ions in Matter) gives a thorough history of the development here, and also says that Bloch had considerable conceptual contributions to the stopping formula. I can improve this page to reflect the above, but please speak up if you have any thoughts on the subject, or tell me if I'm missing something. At the very least, the language that downplays Bolch's importance should be removed, but I can expand on it a bit more as well. HappyDa (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Proper plot needed
editThe current plot to the right is not too informative, maybe even misleading. It makes it look like the stopping power becomes arbitrarily small for high energies, and makes the reference to the 3Mc^2 minimum totally confusing. Compare that to standard plots found in numerous physics lecture notes such as on page 6-7 of [[1]] or page 9 and onwards in [[2]]. I think we need a proper plot, perhaps based on [[3]].Anders Sandberg (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The plot is also incompletely referenced, there is no mention of the material used, or which particle is described. There is no reference for the data and no caption. I second the above concern about the misleading nature of the energy range shown. DMcanada (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
ESTAR
editThe link in reference 6 is dead and there is now not only ASTAR and PSTAR, but also ESTAR for electrons: http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Star/Text/ESTAR.html 129.69.28.81 (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)