Talk:Near-Earth supernova
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Redirects
[edit]Banus: "section redirects don't work on mediawiki"
This appears to be false. I reverted Banus' revert and then tried out typing "Near-Earth Supernova". Works fine. Spoxjox 00:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
"(only 23 atoms)"
[edit]This phrase appears to date from this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supernova&action=historysubmit&diff=274920652&oldid=274880609 to the Supernova article by User:Eric_Kvaalen, 13:17, 4 March 2009, just before that section was separated out into this page.
That's got to be a nonsensical typo - I can't immediately see anything on the cited http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9811/9811457v1.pdf which would justify anything close to that statement! 82.26.7.35 (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I couldn't find a match either. The Knie, K. et al. source said that 69 60Fe decay events were detected in three layers sampled (corresponding to 2.4–3.2 Myr ago), so I'm going to guess that the editor divided this number by three. If so, this appears misleading in any event, since it is an OR estimate and only counts decay events rather than the number of atoms of that isotope.—RJH (talk)
Titanium 44
[edit]In this article, the half life of Ti-44 is said to be 90 years, but in the article on isotopes of titatium it is quoted as 60 years. I don't know if one of those is right, but at least one of them is wrong.
- Remarkably, the literature contains wildly varying estimates of this value, with recent measurements ranging from 48.2 to 58.9 years.[1][2] This site lists an estimate of 59.2 ± 0.6. Apparently it is difficult to obtain an accurate value. RJH (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Suggested Link
[edit]This website is being developed as a nonfictional aid to science and science-fiction writers using the idea of a near-Earth supernova erupting from van Maanen's star. Roger E. Moore (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Van Maanen's star is too small to turn into a type 1a supernova unless it can accrete matter from elsewhere. Regards, RJH (talk)
And a "Mere" Nova?
[edit]Do we need a page Near-Earth_nova? Or are we aware of an absence of candidates to go nova within the range at whcih a nova would bother us? Which would be nice, and if true worth a line in this page, perhaps? Midgley (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
23 atoms
[edit]"23 atoms of this iron isotope were found in the top 2 cm of crust" This has been garbled in some fashion, but I can't set it right from the cited abstracts. Anyone?--Wetman (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
It seems to come from Page 3 of “ON DEEP-OCEAN 60Fe AS A FOSSIL OF A NEAR-EARTH SUPERNOVA” ( astro-ph/9811457 ), if [1] is an accurate copy. If you sum up the detection events for Fe60, then you get 14+7+2 = 23. UphillPhil (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Addition of a section on neutrinos
[edit]Would it be a good idea to add a section on the effects due to neutrino-emission from Supernova? Astroriya (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)