Talk:Plasma globe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fail temporarily while[edit]

"Known to fail while in close proximity to these lamps" could mean that it fails permanently during the course of being beside the plasma lamp, and this could be an argument against "fail temporarily while" being improper writing, as it clarifies this point. Slike2 23:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)thast hot

I don't see that it could mean that. 'I'll stay here while you go to the bank', 'The cat purred while it was stroked', etc. — I can't think of a natural example in which the event that occurred while something else happened was permanent. To express the meaning you suggest, one would have to say something like: 'known to fail when brought into close proximity to these lamps.' Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're missing the fine technical point of the words "to fail". Generally, when one is speaking of equipment, especially electronic equipment failing, that refers to a catastrophic failure that incapacitates the equipment. While someone could doubtless manage this with a plasma lamp, this is decidedly not what we're talking about here. We're talking about soft errors, where the trackpad (etc.) simply doesn't function correctly while in the presence of the disruptive RF field. That is why "not work while" is absolutely correct language and not awkward.
Atlant 01:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"The car broke down while it was being driven" is a counterexample - while is not the word that matters here, rather the word "fail" and the sense of permanence implied by it. As Atlant said, fail could imply either a complete failure ("we suffered a disk failure"), or a temporary failure ("the disk failed to work"). "Stopped working properly while", or "failed to work properly while" are, I think, the correct wordings. Slike2 03:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Atlant I accept your expertise on the technical use of fail (modified by Slike2's comments), but that doesn't make 'to not work while' any less awkward.
  • Slike2 Your example depends upon the use of the present continuous in the 'while' clause, though.
  • In any case, I wasn't intending to change it again; I just wanted to explain my unhappiness. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Perfect. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We just had an edit collision. I was about to write:
I've tried an entirely-new spin on the sentence; see how it reads now and please let me know what you think. (Sometimes, one just has to chuck away the whole thing and start again. :-) )
I'm hopeful that Mel Etitis's "perfect" is in response to my new language.
Atlant 14:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Very nicely done. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eye of the storm[edit]

The article "Eye of the storm" is pointing to this article, but "Eye of the storm" is not mentioned in it. Perhaps someone can add a line or two about this? --Bensin 14:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google does not reveal much. In any case, eye of the storm should probably point to an article on the meterological phenomenon. Suggest this be fixed.

The plasma globe that I bought a few years ago is named "Eye of the Storm". 207.189.230.42 09:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was the trade name used by Rabbit Co to market the plasma lamps made by Larry Albright. See this interview with Larry from the The Light Artist Anthology [http://www.armchair.com/warp/albrite.html ]--N52MIT (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alternative forms Since the 80s various shapes and variations have appeared, including flat disks, tubes and other forms (I have a pink heart-shaped one). Some of these contain small, clear beads that alter the lighting pattern. Should have more on these. Suggesting that we also get rid of the duplicated plasma ball images, keep the one showing the effect of a hand touching the sphere (with small description) and have 1-2 pics depicting significant variation(s) on the ball design.--ChrisJMoor 01:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Parker[edit]

Bill Parker did not single handedly "invent" the plasma lamp. While at MIT's CAVS he saw several other artists who worked with Neon (e.g. Alejandro Sina [1]) who had created essentially the same thing ("touch bulbs") albeit with simpler gas mixes or with bulbs of a single gas. There were other West Coast artists also making similar designs at the same time (eg Larry Albright [2] - his was used in the movie The man with Two Brains). It doesn't seem accurate to attribute the invention of this to one person -it reads like a marketing piece on Bill Parker. 

--N52MIT (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the wiki link to Bill Parker since clearly the guy can't create Captain Marvel in 1940 and then be an undergraduate in the 1970s. There are obviously several Bill Parkers.

No problem - added disamb page to cover both (Bill Parker) Ck lostsword 16:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous. "If an internal link brought you here...." Everything's taken care of now. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Parker (bi)[edit]

This is still an uncorrected issue. The part about Bill Parker reads like a ludicrous marketing campaign with unencyclopedic language like "Parker's innovations are a true example of the work of an artistic and scientific genius." Also, it still claims that he single handedly invented the thing. The source of most of the hyperbolic language is this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_lamp&diff=167390567&oldid=166185181

I suppose Bill_Parker_(MIT) should also be edited to also correct the "inventor" part...

70.81.15.136 (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma disk[edit]

There are also plasma disks (Google images) - do they work by the same mechanism as plasma lamps? They have small semi-opaque balls behind the glass shield though. --Abdull 14:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are similar to "crackle tubes," large neon art tubes full of glass pellets which cause the plasma streamers to jitter around. The 'Luminglas' disks were invented by Wayne Strattman of Strattman Design--Wjbeaty 22:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma lamp's color[edit]

Anyone can explain why do beams change their colour near the glass spheres? --83.13.93.51 00:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just making a guess...but it seems that it is the same color light, just different intesnities (sorry about spelling lol). that seems like the only explanations. at the ends of the "light" its a darker purple. in the middle its blue. Seems simlar.LuckyNumberSeven 01:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the tiny beads in side Luminglas disks and within crackle-tubes? Those beads are coated with various types of neon-signmakers' phosphor compounds. They appear white to the eye, but fluoroesce with bright colors under UV and electron bombardment in the plasma.
Or, are you talking about the plasma streamers with their differing colors at the streamer tips where they touch the inside of the glass globe? Those colors are controlled by the mixture of frequency emission lines of the gas atoms, and the mixture of frequencies depends on the average energy of electron bombardment. If a relatively slow electron is absorbed by, say, a Neon atom, it can pump one of the atom's electron orbitals only to a slightly higher energy level. That atom will give off only one pure color of light when the orbital falls back down. But if the same atom is struck by a much faster electron, the electron can pump up the orbitals to any number of different high energy states. So, in the main body of a neon plasma streamer where e-fields are highest and electrons are moving fast, the emitted light might be a mixture of orange, blue, and violet lines, and it will appear violet-white. But out at the tip where the e-field and the energy is lowest, only the weakest energy levels are pumped, and the light appears as a neon-orange color. (Tiny neon pilot lights behave similarly: at low voltage they're pure orange, but at high voltage they look blue-white.)--Wjbeaty 22:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lamp's longevity[edit]

I brought one 2 days ago, just because they "were there". Wondering how long they last. I can think of 2 likely failure modes - the electronics go, or the cements holding the globe etc could age, become permeable, and let the internal pressure rise beyond what the HV source can strike through. Anyone have experience of this? I would suspect that there's a significant early failure rate, and a long tail where there are rare failures. But you can't do statistics on a sample of 1. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A Karley (talk • contribs).

Your logic sounds good to me. But is there really cement forming the seal on the gas chamber?
Atlant 01:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had two of these, the first one kinda "exploded" (not much, like the glass cracked and fell apart), my guess is because it was in a messy table, somthing was probably touching the glass heating it up (it was when I was a kid), the other I took the globe off to clean (was full of fingerprints), and when I placed it back I guess it didn't stuck as well as it was when ti was new, and when I was bringing it back to it's place the globe rolled off from the base and fell on the ground (not all models have a globe that can be easily removed)--TiagoTiago (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emergence emergency[edit]

What is meant by "emergent patterns in ionized gas"??? And what about "appearance SIMILAR to multiple constant beams of coloured lightning"???

AFAIK, the ionized channels stay there, in a constant way, the same way as they do in lightnings... There is no "emergent pattern", it's just a "gas filament"!!(???)

I'm also not totally convinced that a "flow of current" to objects outside of the orb happens with more relevance than a possible emission of radio waves... Do we have references for this, OR a physico-mathematical proof? -- NIC1138 20:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video[edit]

I added video with plasma lamp on Commons, please see it, if it is useful for this article. --Ragimiri 17:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum power theorem[edit]

An interesting demonstration of this (and a minor safety problem) can occur if you hover a fingertip just above the surface of the glass. (about 0.5mm). It's possible to place it so that the current is not significantly diminished, but the voltage across the gap is substantial. This will form a tiny, but persistent arc, and will form a small burn on the fingertip. I don't recommend that you do experiment - it hurts. --RichardNeill 02:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potential dangers if glass breaks?[edit]

I used to have one of these and the glass orb broke a while ago while it was in a box, crushed under much stuff - you could thank my ditzy mother for that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it would be useful to know exactly what are the dangers if the glass orb breaks and the device is on.

Glass is conductive and I frequently put my finger to the glass as most people do, but I'm pretty sure the concentration of electricity would be much higher without the glass orb spreading it out.

GaeMFreeK 07:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be interested in this being included phocks (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potential dangers vs. Warning[edit]

"Warning" didn't sound very encyclopedic, it sounded like an instruction manual, so I changed it.Rglong 02:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Parker again[edit]

removed a bunch of off topic material:


His early studies used scientific methods to reveal rich images of the diverse properties of various types of light. The integration of his scientific insight and artistic intuition began when he went beyond merely observing the phenomenon of his experiments with light. During this time he studied with renowned photographer Minor White. White taught his students to 'see creatively', maintaining a constant awareness of the visual wealth inherent in the environment. Parker's recognition of the beauty of what he observed fueled a longtime passion for the expressive qualities of light, and he created a series of sketches with laser imagery, ionized gas discharge, and light polarization. These early innovative studies earned him an invitation, at the age of twenty, to become the youngest full fellow at M.I.T's Center for Advanced Visual Studies (C.A.V.S). Later he developed it into the now-ubiquitous product while he was an Artist in Residence at the Exploratorium science museum. Most notably in 1975 after designing and supervising the fabrication of a range of pieces and exhibits for the U.S Pavilion at EXPO '75 in Japan and Southeast Asia. His acquaintance with oriental thinking had a profound impact on his sensibilities. During these travels he encountered the Chinese concept of "wu li" (living energy). This concept is particularly manifest in his current works, where his light forms are imbued with an organic complexity and richness and promotes participatory art that embodies integral aspects of lifelike behavior moving and changing in an organic pattern of living motion. This approach promotes interaction and learning that fascinates millions every year. Parker's innovations are a true example of the work of an artistic and scientific genius. Parker's works have captured the minds of many and his interactive kinetic light art sculptures are still sought after today.

Bill Parker's company Advance Independent Research Laboratories (AIR Labs) was the cornerstone of his business and placed the Light Sculpture in the Sharper Image catalog selling an edition of 1988. Bill's brother Jeff Parker directed the operations and is credited with Bill's financial success in the middle 1980s. The company continued to create unique and limited editions of the Light Sculpture in agreement with the Circle Fine Art Galleries. Tabby (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC) you could have shortened this excess info on william parker but since it came from parker and parkers book lets face it parker and Albright did so much for the advancement of plasma it certainly should be documented as well as possible the history of how they both advanced plasma Tesla certainly invented it but these people had such a significant impact I think all the major artists and scientists should be included. It took alot of work to get that info from parker I wouldn't let it go to waste but hey it's just history right you all forgot william lee in 1935 he was the one who put teslas plasma stuff into action an got the plasma ball back rolling I just suggest getting it right or not doing it at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.132.70 (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interference[edit]

Man, this article really could stand some cleanup:

> If the phone uses tone dialing, then the RFI can add digits to the number being dialed, effectively preventing dialing.

This is complete rubbish. Look at the article on DTMF. If anything, it interferes by adding noise to the line, preventing tone recognition by telecom equipment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.165.196.84 (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma Disc[edit]

I added this term to the "see also" section. I am going to learn how to create a page soon. The last time I tried out wikipedia, I was accused of vandalism because when I created the page, I left it half finished to come back to, but it was deleted, and I reverted it to start working on it again, and the admin was extremely rude and condescending, and I got frustrated. This article was unrelated to the plasma disc article, I have a username sentriclecub, but I don't want to login from this IP because its a public IP. Can someone with positive feedback initiate the page and throw up a picture, and I will come work on it? http://images.google.de/images?num=100&hl=de&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=plasma%20disk&btnG=Suche&sa=N&tab=wi

Also, write on the talkpage at sentriclecub for me to read and discuss. Thanks ~Sentriclecub~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.209.115 (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Play-Doh[edit]

I didn't add the reference to Play-Doh, but someone requested clarification. So, to clarify - while Play-Doh is not a "metal object", it contains a hardening agent based on alum, it has a high moisture content, and it also contains salt. These factors make it a conductor of electricity. If you smoosh Play-Doh onto the globe, and put your hand on it, it tingles. Ransack (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Due to a lack of sources to establish independent notability for Bill Parker (MIT), I propose that the entirety of the article (one sentence) be merged into an appropriate section in this article. I can find no non-trivial sources that would help expand the Parker article; he is notable only in relation to the plasma and the information available is not sufficient to create a full, neutral biography on this individual. There is nothing currently there that would not be appropriate if stated in the history section of this article. I notice above, however, that there seems to be some material; if sources for that can be provided, it might be enough to sustain his own biography. If there is consensus to do so, or if no one comments within a week, I will undertake the merge myself. Cheers, CP 18:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of health risk[edit]

"Since the device also releases electromagnetic radiation, a person with a pacemaker should not touch the device, due to a possibility of pacemaker failure." So do a very large number of other devices that are safe for people with pacemakers - can "electromagnetic radiation" be replaced with something more specific? --Cpl Syx (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

The statement that current does not pass through the glass seems to contradict other statements in that paragraph and on the page. If the glass does not block the electromagnetic field, then it does not block the AC current, because AC current can pass through the field. The next sentence says that the glass acts as a dielectric in a capacitor between the hand and the inside, and AC currents can pass through capacitors. --164.67.190.148 (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not confident in my language here, but I suspect that it is incorrect to say current can pass through a capacitor. What you mean is that AC current can transfer energy through a capacitor, which I imagine is referred to as AC coupling, but if current itself were to flow through a capacitor, it would mean the capacitor had "broken down" or "shorted out". So maybe we could re-word it to more explicitly state that energy can be transferred through the glass because the E and B fields pass through the glass, electric charge cannot flow through the glass. Quietly (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be completely incorrect to say the current passes through the glass. The hand just provides a medium for charges to move through, and when brought close to the ball, charges build up on the end of the fingertips. This current is INDUCED by the opposite charges within the ball. No current flows through the glass itself. And I'm pretty sure that Quietly is correct in saying that current doesn't flow through capacitors, capacitors just store charge, which can later be retrieved as current. Setting up a capacitor in an AC circuit wouldn't have much of an effect, the capacitor would just rapidly charge and discharge in alternating directions. Note that I'm not positive about that last bit. Mavrisa (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normal current (AC or DC) does not pass through glass or a capacitor, but a displacement current does. This isn't a real current—it's more of an analytical trick. A real current flows into one side of a capacitor, and current comes out the other side. No current actually flows through, but we say that a "displacement current" flows between the two sides to make the currents balance. When one says that AC current passes through a capacitor, one is either speaking loosely, or one is considering the displacement current as if it were a real current.--Srleffler (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article overwritten.[edit]

This article, which was on plasma globe type novelty lamps, appears to have been overwritten by an article on a completely different topic. This is not the way to do it. The previous contents should have been preserved. The correct solution in this case is probably to split this into two articles with different titles, one preserving the October 7 version of the article and its edit history, and the other a newly-created article with the current text. We should discuss titles for the two articles first, though. Suggestions?

Teulon3000: I see you are new. Do not try to fix this by creating a new article on the novelty lamps; a slightly more complicated process is necessary to preserve the edit history of the old article, and help from an administrator may be needed.--Srleffler (talk) 06:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the same thing independently. I have restored the article to the October 29 version by the last named editor (not an IP) prior to Teulon3000's rewrite. It is possible that Teulon has added some valuable information, but I do not have the time or knowledge to evaluate that, and for now the original formatting, images, template and categories I have restored. Chutznik (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I preserved Teulon3000's version at Plasma lighting for now. If there is consensus, we could move/rename the article on novelty lamps to Plasma globe, and then move the plasma lighting article to Plasma lamp. Note that the move will also require checking every article that links to this one, to make sure the links point to the appropriate new article.--Srleffler (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - as you see I am new to editing Wikipedia. In the lighting industry the term "plasma lamp" does not refer to the novelty lamps illustrated in this article (which have no practical purpose, as you suggest Plasma globe would be a good place for these) but to the new type of high efficiency lamps being produced by Ceravision, Luxim and Eden Park. These are about to play a major part in energy efficient lighting with major installations forthcoming. In my view it is important that this is promptly corrected. The article on globes has a long section on the dangers of these kinds of lamps. The new plasma lamps have none of these risks (they have to pass through the FCC etc) and this is another reason for the distinction to be made clear. Happy to be instructed as to the correct way to do it but it really needs to be done! --Teulon3000 (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The move is in process.--Srleffler (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively new -- contradiction[edit]

How can it be 'relatively new' if it was invented by Tesla, who died in 1943? --193.239.126.100 (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, your comment should be at talk:plasma lamp. I will copy it there.--Srleffler (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why citation needed?[edit]

why does this say citation needed? "An electric current is produced within any conductive object near the orb, as the glass does not block the electromagnetic field created by the electric current flowing through the plasma (though the insulator does block the current itself).[citation needed] The glass acts as a dielectric in a capacitor formed between the ionized gas and the hand." i didnt write this but a citation shouldnt be needed. it's common sense to anyone that knows some basic electronics. its like saying the sky is blue or the grass is green. it's just simply a fact and pretty much a law of nature. there is no debate or argument. imo shouldnt need citation. 68.188.202.197 (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)sk!weeds[reply]

We had an argument about this here a while back. Someone doubted that current flow could be induced without current flowing through the glass. Yes, it's basic physics, familiar to anyone who has studied how a capacitor works. It is a law of nature; one of Maxwell's Equations. The "citation needed" remains because in principle everything needs a citation. Once a statement is marked "citation needed", the mark should usually remain until one is provided. No synthesis is permitted; a reference to a basic physics text won't do. We need a specific reference that is relevant to the statement in the article. There's no rush. Someone will find a reference for it eventually.--Srleffler (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video issue[edit]

When I play the video of the plasma globe in the article, there is a distinct green flashing. When I play it full-size on the file page, there is no flashing. I'm using Chrome on XP. Chris857 (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temperature of plasma[edit]

What is the temperature of the plasma? LOL-117 (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

25 Dissociation of molecular gasses[edit]

I restated the problem with molecular gasses: "Molecular gasses may be dissociated by the plasma."

The plasma can dissociate molecular gasses. If a molecular gas is used for an effect it produces, that effect may fade over time. The atomic or molecular fragments may be much more reactive than the parent gas was at the outset. These components may further react with components of the globe, such as the metal of a metal center electrode, if used, and produce undesirable compounds.

The introduction to this article implies that such dissociation is common: http://pubs.rsc.org/En/content/articlelanding/1934/tf/tf9343001018

Here, the dissociation of C02 is achieved with a system power of 5 watts. (The current density of the plasma is not mentioned. The current density goes up in the plasma channel of a formed tendril.): https://ncur.weber.edu/ncur/archive/Display_NCUR.aspx?id=41292

John Ross 76.94.213.135 (talk) 07:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading images[edit]

This edit restored two images I removed from the article. The restorer gave the comment "If you want to replace the images with better ones, go ahead, but don't simply delete them. They are fine." The two images are

Plasma lamp running. Note the result when the finger touches the bulb.
Interior of a plasma ball

The first image is not needed. We strongly discourage animated GIFs on Wikipedia. They are a previous-century technology and distracting to those trying to read the article. That's why we have video and I've taken and added a modern HD video. We already have an image of what happens when someone touches the globe. So this GIF adds nothing. It is very low resolution. The second image is a slow-shutter-speed image of a ball that is nice and pretty but absolutely not what a plasma ball looks like. Those blue ribbons are an artefact of the camera's long exposure. That's just art.

Wikipedia articles are not an art gallery of pretty images. We have a link to Commons which can contain fancy artistic pictures taken using plasma balls. The article should have educationally relevant images. A short article like this does fine with a couple of images and a video. These two should be removed imo. -- Colin°Talk 19:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points. The always-on animation is a particularly annoying distraction. Reify-tech (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I accept your arguments, for both images. --Srleffler (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ozone[edit]

Is there any chance the globe generates ozone around it, when touched or otherwise? I think I can smell it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.14.205 (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get this too. It's weird. Is it safe? 74.75.5.28 (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plasma globe 23s.webm to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Plasma globe 23s.webm will be appearing as picture of the day on January 21, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-01-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A plasma globe is a decorative novelty item that consists of a glass orb filled with a mixture of various gases. A smaller orb in its center serves as an electrode, so that plasma filaments form connecting it to the outer glass shell. They appear as multiple, constantly moving beams of colored light.Video: Colin
Archive – More featured pictures...

Requested move 10 October 2019[edit]

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: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma globe → Plasma ball – Ball has about 887,000 Google results compared with only 197,000 for the current title. Plasma lamp only gets 162,000 results but is used in the article's 1st ref but note that Plasma lamp is a separate article which appears to be broader anyway. "Plasma ball" is used in both of the last refs and the others either don't use the terms at all or can't be accessed, Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't have an article on this topic so there's no guidance there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hobbyist use of plasma globe power supply for other purposes[edit]

The glass globe sphere can be removed leaving a single bare wire. This bare wire energizes hollow cathode lamps, a lamp/element collectors item, to make a visible central plume of a different emissions color. At $11-14(ebay) this is much more affordable than the $1995 list for hollow cathode lamp power supplies. The plasma globe's power supply can also power, without flashing, photoflash xenon tubes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treonsverdery (talk • contribs) 00:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 January 2023[edit]

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: Procedural close. I have t reverted my own bold move, so this request is now moot. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma ball → Plasma globe – The page was just moved to "Plasma ball" with no discussion. I disagree that this is the more common term for this device. The editor's reasoning for the move is confused. He/she posted the edit comment "plasma ball is the common name for this - see https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=plasma+ball%2Cplasma+globe%2Cplasma+lamp&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3". The link loads an Ngrams page showing much higher usage of the term "plasma ball" vs "plasma globe" or "plasma lamp", however doing the obvious thing and looking at the links shows that many of them are referring to other uses of the term (see Plasma ball (disambiguation)). For example, I looked at the first ten links in the 2017–2019 time range. Of those, only one was a reference to the topic of this article. Three were describing plasma discharges in various types of equipment, two were referring to ball lightning, two were referring to the output of sci-fi weapons, one was describing the sun, and one was a coincidence: a sentence ending in "plasma" followed by one starting with "Ball". This page move was ill-considered. Based on the ngrams results, it is also not clear that this article is the primary usage of the term "plasma ball". It would be better to put the pages back where they were. They were fine with those titles for years. Srleffler (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plasma_globe&oldid=1211113585"