Talk:Arden Buck equation

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Science This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article claims that values returned by the formulae are in kPa when in fact they appear to be returned in Pascals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.189.231 (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

t is the absolute air temperature in degrees Celsius

If a temperature is in celsius then it's not absolute. Which is it? From the reference, I think the celsius bit is right and the absolute bit is wrong but I'm not confident enough to change this. EdDavies 18:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, surely the word "air" should be omitted? T is the temperature of the water and vapour in equilibrium. Fathead99 (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether this equation could be used to caculate the water pressure over ice or liquid water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaoxin (talk • contribs) 11:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) The Wikipedia article does not precise if the deviated formula is meant for Saturated vapor pressure over water or over ice.
2) The Wikipedia article does not precise if the deviated formula is meant for atmospheric pressures at sea level or other barometric level.
3) The given formula is said to be a modification of buck (1981) formula, however the literature reference is incomplete (Journal? Book?, published by?). If Buck's research manual is unpublished no warranties can be given about the exactfullness of the formula. Moreover it is uncertain if this modified formula has been adquately reviewed by a peer group of specialists on the putative field.

I propose to remove the modified equation and replace them by the equation matrix in Buck (1981) or update the literature references —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.7.152.194 (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many web references that cite to the modified equation, so going back to the 1981 version seems inappropriate.

http://cires.colorado.edu/~voemel/vp.html

http://www.humidity-calculator.com/

These sources may not be reliable, but the inference is Buck is a significant individual so even if the Buck Research Manual is self-published, the equation would be WP:V and WP:N. This article is, after all, about his equation.

Glrx (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 websites that cite the modified equation. In comparison there are at date (May 2011) 315 articles (according to google scholar) citing The Buck (1981) equation with the most recent article dating from 2011. Thus the 1981 formula is not outdated and actively used. I stronly believe publishing the 1981 formula is preferred than the 1996 formula which cannot be backtraced to it's original source and for which it's adequacy is based on the occurence of the formula on 2 websites. The 1981 equation should be given because it is actively used in scientific literature and has thus had multiple occasions to prove it's validity.
Second, Buck may be a reliable person. I don't know buck personally but i recon he had his merits in his article from 1981, based on the ammount of literature his article generated. However i can't be sure the formula stated here in wikipedia is from AL BUCK as i don't have access to the sources. Moreover, if Buck believes his modified formula has it's merits why wasn't it published? In other words, if AL BUCK didn't make his adapted formula open to the public, why should we publish it (assuming it is BUCK's modified formula) to the mass?

Then add the 1981 formula to the article but keep the Buck Research Manual formula. The addition will improve the article because both equations will be shown. That we don't have access to the Buck Research Manual does not mean it cannot be used as a source. Glrx (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These pages should be renamed avoiding equation and substituting with correlation. --93.57.24.9 (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose.

WP:COMMONNAME. Glrx (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The equation given here does not match the article "Vapour pressure of water" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure_of_water) 93.92.223.57 (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]