SabrielxD

Your submission at Articles for creation: Isotopocule has been accepted

Isotopocule, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The epsilon in moist adiabatic Lapse rate formula is not correct.

Hello, I believe in Oct 2023 you added an epsilon to the denominator of moist Lapse rate formula. I don't think that is correct because of the R_sw that is there. The epsilon would be correct if it was R_sd instead of R_sw in the denominator.

Karl Runge 99.47.47.186 (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Karl, thank you for the message! I have checked the equation and believe you are right! I was comparing the equations on Wikipedia and in a meteorology textbook, and got back then confused that epsilon was in the legend below the equation but not in the equation itself. And I totally missed that here is R_sw in the denominator, while there is R_sd in the book.

I will delete epsilon from the equation. Do you think it would be better to delete it also from the legend, as it is not used in the equation at all? To avoid any confusion in the future?

Thank you again for checking and contacting me!

Best regards, Kristyna SabrielxD (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you so much for replying! I, too, was confused by the awkwardness of the legend (in particular, why the epsilon was there.) But now I see the epsilon is in the definition of the mixing ratio "r" in the next line, and "r" is in the main equation, so I think we need to leave epsilon in the legend. Karlrunge (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I see. It is confusing, indeed. Thanks again! SabrielxD (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)