Talk:Proton beam writing

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proton beam writing article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page was proposed for deletion by Kkmurray (talk · contribs) in the past with the comment:
Unreferenced and not notable.
It was contested by Kvng (talk · contribs) on 2018-05-29 with the comment:
Significant coverage found in Scholar search

Physics Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electronics

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

proton dose[edit]

...required for exposure varies from 30-150 nCmm⁻²... What?! nano Coulomb per square millimeter? Charge density?? Nooo... Please, someone, clarify. -- Kku (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC) -> This is certainly not the dose, but the fluence, which is given here. I corrected this and inserted a remark after the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.1.108.74 (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

could someone review this, particulerly the line "Hopefully, this will be addressed in the near future." lacks objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.199.208.146 (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]