Talk:Lyman series

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spectroscopy (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spectroscopy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SpectroscopyWikipedia:WikiProject SpectroscopyTemplate:WikiProject SpectroscopySpectroscopy articles

Why are there two different pages for Lyman-alpha_line and Lyman series? They seem to be repetitive. User:alejandr013

This article has a lot of legacy units. Can anyone ensure that this article works in SI units? Bobblewik 16:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frigoris 16:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Can anyone add the applications of Lyman- $\alpha$ Forest in astronomy to this article?[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelengths[edit]

I just removed the figure because it had the wrong wavelength for Lyman beta. It should be 1025.72 Angstroms, not 1025.18. Source: http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Handbook/Tables/hydrogentable2.htm Also, Parenti, Vial, Lemaire, 2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 443, 679. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.142.24.64 (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just uploaded a new version, then discover that I fail at rounding. Give me a mo' to fix it again. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong numbers[edit]

It seems to me the number 12430 is calculated wrong. Googling "h * c / electron charge / angstrom" without the quotes (as well as manual calculation) gives me 12398.4 Can anyone explain this? 2001:610:1908:8000:C9A6:DCFD:5E11:D44E (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well since it calculates the values from the table wrong, i'm assuming nobody ever bothered to check it. I'm updating the value 2001:610:1908:8000:C9A6:DCFD:5E11:D44E (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12398.4 as a value for hc in eV*Angstroms, is indeed correct. Thanks for noticing. S B H arris 02:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]