What does everyone feel about on-topicness of chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/549/…?

It seems to lean into statistical thermoD, so maybe better at Physics

@Manishearth I don't know, tbh, I've always studied gas laws in the context of chemistry, but I see that the answer seems to require physics knowledge. I think we should try to hang onto it if it's mainly on topic on chem, unless it's not going to get the best answer here

@jonsca Yeah, I already summoned the physics mods--we need to establish some boundaries anyway

I didn't see a reply from them in TL, though

Either that, or we just decide an overlap--these questions stay where they're asked, but are fine on both sites

@jonsca Not yet

DavidZaslavsky IIRC is asleep now :P

@Manishearth I don't think we should pursue migration just on the scope that it might get a better answer somewhere else

the first question to be asked about migration is: if Physics.SE didn't exist, would we close it as off-topic?

if we wouldn't close it as off-topic, then we don't consider migration

for me, it's on-topic… chemical physics, physical chemistry…

I am more concerned about the spoon question, because it's friction + surface tensions, and doesn't require much knowledge of molecular interactions AFAICT

@Fx Alright, I see. Yeah, especially in our beta phase, we ought to be less aggressive. By that criteria, it's on-topic. It's well in the overlap though.

I guess we should talk about "better answer there" once we graduate

@Fx I think in this case it's confounded by the common ground of the two sites, but I think that usually we should be obligated to find a question the best home.

But hanging on to all that we've got is a practical concern, I agree

Speaking of which...

if this is on the borderline, DSP.SE might be a better place for it

@jonsca DSP.SE? What is that?

Signal processing: dsp.stackexchange.com/questions

@Canageek But sit tight, I want to see what the other guys think of it first

@jonsca Possibly, though every person I know who does NMR is a chemist, and it is fundamentally related to the quantum mechanical processes observed (and which parts of those observations wind up in the real and imaginary parts of the spectrum), not just the math, as I understand it.

@Canageek Right, but you're asking more about transforms and the data than you are about the underlying chemistry, I think, right?

@Aesin As a dopant it may not be too bad; The precatous for working with uranium are annoying, but doable, and a as dopant you only need 5% or less. My group could never afford to dope things with platinum.

@jonsca I think the two are entangled: To answer that you have to know what data winds up in each domain, and then how the transform brings it back.

@jonsca well, if it can reasonably fit into both places, we should honor the OP's intent

@Fx I have been meaning to ask, would a Chemistry mods only chatroom make sense. I feel like we should have a place to discuss questions away from users (if necessary) and not have to clutter up TL with it