User talk:Deglr6328/Archive2

Rope tricks moire

Thank you for explaining why you reverted the image. I agree that there was some detail loss including a loss of contrast between light and dark areas. The reason for the blurring was because I employed a method of dual image juxtaposition to get rid of the halftone pattern, a method often used in graphic design. Perhaps someone else will have a powerful software package or better filters and can deal with it better than I could. — oo64eva (AJ) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 01:27, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I've just cleaned it up in Image-Pro Plus: Fast Fourier Transform; clip out the frequency spikes for the pattern; Inverse FFT. Tearlach 10:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Isotope project

As if you're not busy enough, I was wondering if you would be interested in contributing to a project I started a few weeks ago. It's purpose is to catalogue many of the known isotopes. If you think this is something you'd enjoy contributing to add your name to the team list. The work won't really begin until mid May. Before that time however, I'd like it if you'd critique the templates/methods we have in place right now. If not no problem, it just seems like it may be of interest to you based on your contributions. Take care. — oo64eva (AJ) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 01:27, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Why, yes, yes I would....Maybe. :-)--Deglr6328 04:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well maybe is better than a no. — oo64eva (AJ) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 07:05, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Werner Heisenberg.jpg

Bonjour, you uploaded Image:Werner Heisenberg.jpg, is this picture really public domain ? I cant find any clues about it. Greudin (discuss.)

See Archive1 for previous discussion. Conclusion was that even though I think it is in PD because its nearly 80 years old I can't prove it because the source is unknown. Even though I know Wikipedia admins would disagree - to be honest, I think the question is irrelevant, the subject and whoever took the photo are both long dead and no one makes any money off this image anymore. do they? sooo....who cares is my general view. Sorry if it sounds callous, but.... --Deglr6328 01:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Pahoeoe fountain original.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

Voting for standardization

Hi. I'm oo64eva. We're holding a vote here to standardize the table and color template. If you have any questions leave a message on my talk page or on the project talk page. Spread the word about the vote, it ends May 12th at 3:40 UTC.

Oh, and in response to your question on the talk page, we do not need to implement a bot in my opinion. We probably aren't going to create 3100 articles, but mainly an isotopes of element X page listing data and information on all of those isotopes. Of course notable isotopes will get their own page. Once work gets underway and contributors see the progress, they may be more inclined to join on. — oo64eva (Alex) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 04:04, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Trinity anniversary

July 16, 2005 —two months from now—will be the 60th anniversary of the "Trinity" test. I'm trying to organize a few people into getting that article to featured quality before then, anticipating a lot of general news coverage and curious minds. I've noticed you doing good work on Manhattan Project-related articles in the past, so I thought I would see if you were interested in helping out. Please see the discussion at Talk:Trinity site for some of my further thoughts on what should be present in the article, and please feel free to share you own. Thanks! --Fastfission 19:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow, well it needs a LOT of work....--Deglr6328 03:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Real working RTG before 1966 ?

Thanks for cleaning up the Fairway Rock article. I picked up sentences of a teacher living at Diomede, who recently wrotes me.
But RTG before 1966? Perhaps I'm wrong, but this one was the first, really working for longer times, (surely excepting smaller tests).
-- Peter 2005 20:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

P.S. You are right. RTGs exist since 1961: "The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has provided radioisotope thermoelectric generators for space applications since 1961." and "The first generator was used on the Navy Transit 4A spacecraft launched on June 29, 1961." [1].
In space, but seldom used on Earth excepting the Soviet "unmanned lighthouses and navigation beacons" and the very small "plutonium cells."

Your modifications at the RTG page are good changes. I only missed the year "1966". But I let it, like it is. On the Island page, I changed "the very first" to "a first" RTG was placed atop the island. I hope you have seen the three photos of Fairway Rock. Have a good day. -- Peter 2005 08:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

:-O!!! (Xenon Flash)

Thanks! I was beginning to wonder if anyone liked any of my photographs! :) I can slow it down easily enough, .. I was orignally just going to scale it down small and put each frame next to each other... But the animation looked so cool! It seems mediawiki doesn't do a great job scaling the animated gif (at least on my browser it looks like it has snow in it). The image was created by using a flash unit which has an adjustable inductor in its path, this lets me slow down the influx of current into the lamp causing it to not make it beyond a certain point in its firing, from there I just shot lots of pictures out of phase with the lamp until I'd captured a couple of distinct steps. I would have shot more, but the lamp very quickly goes outside of the dynamic range of the display :). --Gmaxwell 07:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Well its super neato!! :) --Deglr6328 07:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've slowed it down, but it appears my browser only listens to the speed for the first loop.. after that it just plays as fast as it can. ::shrugs:: If I had more frames I'd make a darn ogg video, but its neat being able to put the animation in the page.. Though I suspect it might be a bit too distracting. :) --Gmaxwell 08:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you again for pointing out the image swapping.. I've fixed it. --Gmaxwell 05:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chemical names

Hi - I noticed that you're changing a lot of things like sulphuric acid -> sulfuric acid. The manual of style says that IUPAC names should be used in articles about chemicals and chemistry, but for articles like Mount Pinatubo and volcano that wouldn't apply. In that case, there's no real need to change the article from the style it was originally written in, particularly if that introduces British/American spelling inconsistencies (it might do for Pinatubo, I wrote much of that article and am British). Cheers - Worldtraveller 23:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Sulfur lamps

Hi. I know you contributed to the article I wrote on sulfur lamps. I'm not very familiar with the technology (I used to just see it at the Air and Space and the DOE building). Someone has lumped sulfur lamps in with inductive lighting, which is described as a fluorescent technology. This seems incorrect to me. The article "sulfur lamp" has been renamed to "inductive lighting". Can you take a look at this as see if it's all correct? Also, can you explain to me what became of this technology? It was billed in the Washington Post as the "technology of the future." I am unable to find an answer why it failed. Thank you. SDC 18:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Earth pic

Hello, I wonder what you mean by your edit [2] when you say its "not our job to fit a photograph to our expectations"...? My upload of the bigger image was not intended to fit anything to our expectations but instead to more accurately represent the true color of earth [3] than does the excessively red version currently in the article.--Deglr6328 02:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The size doesn't mean so much - they're both gigantic (and it's easy enough to upload the full-size version of the original). The point is that none of us have seen the Earth from space - we don't know exactly how it should look, so we may as well stick with the original. Please also check Image_talk:The_Blue_Marble.jpg. ¦ Reisio 03:15, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

Fine, though both images might be inaccurate I would say we DO know how it should look [4].--Deglr6328 03:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That image of the Earth is a greatly modified composite, made up of very low-level images [5]; it (the globe rendering) is not an accurate representation of what Earth would look like from the perceived distance. That said, even if it were, that wouldn't justify altering the appearance of a well-known image. ¦ Reisio 22:46, 2005 July 19 (UTC)

Picture on alternating current

Hi Deglr, you've put a picture on alternating current - in my eyes the resulting blinking isn't from the alternating current, but from the algorithms used in digital photography - as i put on the discussion page for that picture on wikimedia commons:

I would say this is a special case of motion blur - I guess this image was taken with a digital camera, as you can still see discrete pre-images before these where added up to make up the final image. The motion blur of a traditional analogue camera would show continous lines instead of chopped. --Abdull 13:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

What would you say - am I incorrect? Thanks, --Abdull 13:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree. I'll post on the talk page to the photo.--Deglr6328 17:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Compact Disc

I have noticed your contribution to the Compact Disc article regarding Klaas (not Klass; it is the Dutch version of the German Claus, like in SantaClaus) Compaan. Your statement is false, see the laservision article, where you may read that Laserdisc technology was invented by David Paul Gregg in 1958, patented in 1961 and 1969, and first publicly demonstrated by Philips and MCA in 1972. It was first available on the market on December 15, 1978, two years after the VHS VCR and five years before the CD. So pleae delete your addition to the CD article. Dsc 10:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I will post to the talk. --Deglr6328 02:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultraviolet Vision

I saw your conversation regarding ultraviolet vision in humans. I remember as a child reading about the U.S. government recruiting people who had cataract operations to patrol coastlines because German UBoats used ultraviolet lamps to signal spies ashore. The people who'd had their lenses replaced supposedly could see ultraviolet light. Today, I saw this article on the subject: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/medicalscience/story/0,9837,724257,00.html. A professor with one aphakic eye says he can see ultraviolet light. Your thoughts?

Wow that was a really fascinating article, thank you! I am certainly by no means an expert by the way. This certainly deserves to be added to the UV article. --Deglr6328 05:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:High Resolution Solar Spectrum.jpg

Please compare the license you gave with de:Bild:Solarspectrum.jpg. Who's wrong? --Saperaud 03:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

He is. [6] --Deglr6328 03:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --Saperaud 05:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

"Real Sciences"

Hi. I noticed that in one of your edits you mentioned that the difference between natural sciences and social sciences is that the former is somehow real science and social science is not. I was yust wondering, have you ever studied the social sciences? Psychology, for example, uses the scientific method, does experiments and even studies things that somehow fit in the category of natural science, such as brain, sensation and perception.--Heida Maria 00:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I consider psychology to be somewhat pseudoscientific, and at best, a proto-science. Psychological experimentation is often sorely lacking in repeatability and falsifiability. Psychiatry is even more useless IMHO. This is not to say that other fields, which for what ever reason are included in the field of psychology, for instance, cognitive neuroscience, are equally bad. In fact, it looks like great strides are being made there and I suspect that eventually this field will begin to provide a rigorous explanation of consciousness, whereupon it will then consign the current form of psychology to history's dustbin of ambitious but ultimately wrong and premature theories. --Deglr6328 00:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Ulysses spacecraft.jpg

Hi, please add your source for this photo. Thuresson 04:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

its nasa.--Deglr6328 06:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Please add a source that will help others verify that the photo is PD, eg a web link, or name and edition of a magazine, name and author of a book. Just "nasa" is not help enough. Thuresson 08:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It obviously couldn't possibly be from any other source. A 2 second goolge search on Ulysses is all that was needed. --Deglr6328 22:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

People without keyboards?

Yes, actually not everyone uses a keyboard - some out of choice, but most because they have a disability, such as RSI, missing limbs etc. ··gracefool |☺ 08:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

What do you use then?--Deglr6328 08:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

A keyboard. But if I was blind I most probably wouldn't. The point is that it looks very unprofessional for an article to talk about doing something which may not make any sense to the user. ··gracefool |☺ 17:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I still don't get it. What would THEY use? Would it not have the ability to send an 'escape' command?--Deglr6328 18:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

People use voice-activated software, or alternative peripherals. Sure, they probably they do have the ability to stop the loading of a page. Another issue though is people with slow connections or for someone other reason have images turned off. A caption with a browser instruction makes no sense to them either. For those whom it does make sense for, it's still just plain bad style. It's similar to having a link labelled "click here". ··gracefool |☺ 16:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I can give a go

Deglr6328

Thanks for asking and I'll briefly give it a go, but keep in mind I'm no walking encycloedia, PUN, LOL In your investigations, please do correct me if I'm wrong. First, I think we need to know the difference between Ionizing and non ionizing.

NON IONIZING

Think of a Klystonsas a vacuum tube or a television tube CRT

Klysrons give off Secondary emissions and X-RAYS.

Knowing about vacuum tube theory we can realize then that most non ionizing 'US TEXT WRITTEN otherwise' occurs near the anode electrode, or plate.

Also see: Non-ionising radiation

IONIZING See Ionizing radiation as in microwaves/ RF. Wave guide, etc.

SEE:Ionizing radiation Answer lies with the text in Electromagnetic radiation

Hope that helps ya'll. Also see Electromagnetic field Sorry about format. Hope I hit the nail on the head? Regards Scott 17:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

They do give off X-rays? Hm ok then I'll add that to the article.--Deglr6328 18:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I must admit it is confusing, even to me, but wording of text should always be important to minimize the confusion. Always hard to do! Have a great weekend! Scott 18:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Editing the Fusion Power article

Sorry - I am a bit new to wikipedia, wasn't aware of that etiquette. I posted my thoughts in the discussion section. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Image:Liquid carbon dioxide on the bottom of the ocean.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Liquid carbon dioxide on the bottom of the ocean.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Thue | talk 12:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured Picture

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Bruce McCandless II during EVA in 1984.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations. It is a stunning image. Raven4x4x 12:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Eric Lerner personal attack

I do not appreciate your personal attack against Eric Lerner on his article talk page on 5 November 2005, and consider it a personal attack which controvenes Wikipedia policy. If you continue, I will not hesitate to take the matter to dispute resolution. --Iantresman 15:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

really? You'll take my comments about a huckster and a fraud which appear on a talk page to dispute resolution? Cool. Fuck you too then. :) Since your comment here reveals an extremely serious case of clueless moron syndrome, maybe, just maybe, you'd better read that wiki policy again. have a nice day.--Deglr6328 03:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Image of flashlight spectum

Somebody (maybe you) put your image on the black body page, saying that it shows that the flashlight is radiating as a black body. Actually the shape is quite different. This could be because the filament is not really black, or it could be that the power dimmed while you were taking the spectrum. How long did it take to do the spectrum? Sometimes the battery in a flashlight is not strong and it dims rather quickly. EricK 16:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Geisha

Thank you for the assistance. I'm going to see if I can produce a higher resolution image. As I've never done this before, I appreciated your help.

ToddLara 18:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Lorentz SVG comment

Hello Deglr6328, could you please revisit Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Lorenz_attractor_projection click on one of the SVG thumbs and notice how mediawiki renders a png version for you. Browser compatibility is not an issue with SVG, but in the future users with high res displays and uncrappy browsers will be able to still enjoy the same pictures at high magnifications. --Dschwen 09:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Will you comment on a potential FPC?

Hello Deglr6328 - This is Debivort, the FPC contributor who made the annotated San Juan Panorama, about which I valued your comments. I was wondering if you had time to comment on another potential FPC that I am making. You can find it here. Thanks if you have time! - Debivort 09:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Cola de Caballo image

Thanks for the feedback on my FPC. I withdrew the nomination because it obviously wasn't going to pass, but I thought I'd ask you about one of your comments. What are you referring to when you say "purple CA"? Someone else mentioned purple near the top of the picture as well, but I'm not seeing it. That might be because I don't know what "CA" means. Any suggestions on how to avoid it (whatever 'it' is) in future shots? Oh, and there's no reason to be sorry; I like the picture enough to be able to still like it even after finding out that no one else does =). I thought people might have a problem with the overexposure of the sky, but that's part of the reason I like it. Again, thanks for the input! --Spangineer^es (háblame) 01:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, "purple CA" (Chromatic abberration) or "purple fringing" is caused when the optics in a camera disperse the light (like a prism) as they focus it and cause the separation of colors which is most apparent where there is a very bright area right next to a very dark area in the image. --Deglr6328 01:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:High Resolution Solar Spectrum.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:High Resolution Solar Spectrum.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Featured Picture

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Deep Impact HRI.jpeg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations, and thankyou for nominating it. Raven4x4x 06:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture of the Day

[[:Image:Meissner effect.jpg|thumb|100px|right|POTD]] Hi Deglr,

Just to let you know that the photo you uploade, Image:Meissner effect.jpg, is due to make an appearance as Pic of the Day on the 15th January. As this will be a weekend it should also appear on the MainPage. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/January 15, 2006. Also, the image description page was missing a source link. I found a plausible source, by searching on the caption, but did I get it right? -- Solipsist 09:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yep you got it! :) I improved the caption.--Deglr6328 05:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

atomism

Please give some suggestions or concrete criticisms for the atomism article. Simply saying it "sucks majorly" and adding an improvement flag is not very helpful.--ragesoss 11:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Wiki-person who said this article "sucks" is not entirely wrong. It is not of the quality of the typical Wikipedia article at all. It is, really, a mess. I will try to do some minor changes. If they are not desired, hopefully the Wiki gods can just change the article back to the way it was.

Titan's image

Please do not delete the color image, received from Huygens. It made with the Downward-Looking Visible Spectrometer. ESA says it is true-color. --Nixer 12:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I will delete it as it is absolutely NOT true color because disr did not have a color imager!--Deglr6328 21:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You're simply not right:

This movie shows a quick succession of multiple products of Titan's surface from the Cassini orbiter and the European Space Agency's Huygens probe. It shows Cassini imaging science sub-system images, radar images and visual and infrared mapping spectrometer images of the Huygens probe landing area. The rest of the movie consists of mosaics from the descent imager/spectral radiometer. The camera system on the Huygens probe mimics the descent profile of the probe starting at about 144 kilometers (89 miles), looking eastward throughout. It displays the Titan surface in true color. The sequence ends with a true-color surface image. The radar images of the Huygens landing site were taken by the Cassini orbiter radar instrument during the Titan flyby on Oct. 28, 2005.

Source:[7]--Nixer 03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid the press release is quite wrong then. As it is not possible for the disr ccds to create "true color" images. [8].--Deglr6328 03:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

Thanks for your edits to the vacuum article. In the future, though, please try to write edit summaries and please don't swear. You didn't find a better analogy than my milkshake one.--Yannick 03:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"WTF" is "swearing"?!? If I said "what the FUCK!?" now that's swearing! That analogy with the milkshake was so out of place, bizzare and incomprehensible what other reaction could I have? It was just plain wierd. I thought it was vandalism. If we MUST have an analogy here (I don't think we do, it's really not that complex a process) why not just add a diagram of a similar pump type. --Deglr6328 04:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bunsen burner.jpg

Hi!. Do you recall where this image came from and how we know its in the public domain? Thanks! --Gmaxwell 05:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

oops. guess I forgot to tag it. I think I remember getting it from a nasa page. but I can't find it now.--Deglr6328 06:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

projects

Here are two projects in which you might be interested:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience

Bubba73 (talk), 05:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:CD28_structure.gif

- Just to say thank you for Image:CD28 structure.gif Secretlondon 08:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

:-) --Deglr6328 08:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Brion VIBBER

Was there good reason for you to have dumped all that information onto his user page? --Nlu (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

He requested it from the village pump (technical). I didn't want to upload a file. He can delete it or whatever if it isn't useful. Please revert your reversion.--Deglr6328 08:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Luminol_synthesis.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Luminol_synthesis.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 13:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Misleading representations of Moon path

Can you please explain why you think the article is so bad? Maybe you are right.... but I would like to understand why...Tó campos 12:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Quantum flapdoodle

Great phrase! - thanks for adding it to the quantum mysticism page - I considered for a while renaming the page 'Quantum Flapdoodle', but then thought that might limit it to Gell-Mann's observations on the phenomenon. Instead, if anyone does a search of 'quantum flapdoodle', they get redirected to Quantum Mysticism. What do you think? Adambrowne666 11:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me.--Deglr6328 05:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting "Beria"

Regarding you cancelling the edits to "Beria" article. Where exactly did you see vandalism in those edits?

the question is where DON'T you see it. [9]--Deglr6328 23:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

HappyApple contact

Hello over there, i have received your message at my discussion page, and i want to inform to you there has been a terrible mistake on one of those pictures, because both shows the oxygen "glowing splint" test. The first one [10] only differs from [11] as on the latter case has the spigot slightly more opened than the previous case. Hydrogen is detected by a "lighted splint" test clearly shown on [12] According to http://www.pc.chemie.uni-siegen.de/pci/versuche/english/v21-2.html , btw, thank you for warn me about this mistake, cheers --HappyApple 03:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

ahh ok. that's what I figured might be going on.--Deglr6328 03:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Beria

If you consider adding legitimate facts and eliminating information that cannot be considered factual, vandalism, or in other words simply attempt to hide facts that overshadow your own opinion, what kind of historian are you?

you have been warned several times by more than one person that your edits consist almost entirely of POV pushing and whitewashing of historical events. this is your last chance. if you continue you will be listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct.--Deglr6328 23:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I have been accused of vandalism solely by you. Another person simply redirected your comments to me.

Secondly, instead of throwing cheap warnings, why don't you respond in a civilized fashion? If you really see POV pushing or whitewashing in my edits, why don't you provide examples and I'll be happy to explain them to you in great detail. It's true that facts I provided and information, I removed due to lack of its factual evidence, probably undermine your point of view. But, once again, why do you assume that it's acceptable to censor other people's edits just because they go against your own opinion?

P.S. At your page, it says, you are mainly interested in scientific articles. Wouldn't it be better if you stayed within that frame and avoided interfering in subjects, you don't know as much about? (Sorry, but if you were very knowledgeable in the field of Soviet history, you wouldn't, so carelessly, brand legitimate edits, vandalism.)

yawn. --Deglr6328 21:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If that's your attitude, go occupy yourself with something "exciting." But seriously, what right do you have to eliminate someone's work if you can't even give legitimate reasons for doing so?

In short, in the future, please stay away from my work on subjects you barely know anything about.

Much Appreciated.

double yawn. haven't you even figured out how to sign your own edits yet? pfft. hah. --Deglr6328 23:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What difference does it make as long as you know anyway from whom the message is. I'll sign it properly in the future if you are so obsessed with it.

But think, how pathetic you are avoiding the real subject like that. Just stop interfering with my work on the subjects you evidently know less about than Selassie knew about calculus, and I'll be happy never to talk to you again. -NapoleonIII 13:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

ohh snap! a calculus comeback! haha! you're hilarious. prediction of time left 'till banning: <1 month.--Deglr6328 12:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your message about an "important fact," of death toll that resulted from Stalin's ruthless security apparatus, that you claim was in millions. If you look at the official NKVD Archives, you'll find that around 350 thousands per year were executed in 1937-38 and around 50 thousand per year in 1936, 1939. In other years numbers of executions are significantly less. That adds up to less than a million or millions, especially if you factor regular criminals (not political) into that. Of course the overall death toll from Stalin's regime is greater, but that particualr sentence was about the number of people killed by state security so you can't add victims of famine, war or other into that. -NapoleonIII 14:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

are you still here? I though you'd 'be happy never to talk to me again' sigh. oh well so much for hoping. how tiresome.--Deglr6328 13:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Bad FPC

I left a note on User_talk:MansaMusa's page that his FPC was removed. Thanks for removing that, I was going to do it but the whole easter thing got in the way. -Ravedave 23:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Photos & Microscopes

If I may ask, what is your setup with cameras/microscopes? I've been looking for an affordable way to setup my Digital Rebel XT with a microscope to take gemmological and other interesting shots. Any advice? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The microscope is something like this [13] from olympus using a standard C-mount with a pixelink PL-A623C imager on it [14]. Honestly I don't know exactly how to connect a digital SLR to a microscope though. --Deglr6328 10:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Graphs

Sorry, I did not think about colour and colour blind people. I am not sure how best to go forwards. Do you know if I can upload a text file onto wikipedia. I could provide a text file which is a table of gamma ray data.Cadmium 19:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I send you e-mail ? I could e-mail you the data files.Cadmium

Please see cadmium/sub page for a copy of the text for 20 cm of concrete.Cadmium

Oh my. I'm afraid I don't really know what to do with such a huge list of unsorted numbers. I was thinking maybe an excel sheet?--Deglr6328 23:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

While I was brushing my teeth I was thinking that I would need to tell you how to use the numbers. What you need to do is to go to the sub page, and enter the edit mode. Copy all the text and paste it into notepad. Then save it as text on your machine. Then use excel to open it (start up excel press control-O, and open using the wizard to guide you {Do not use fixed width}), tabs separate the columns. Then you can get the data back.

The first column is the time in days, all the other columns are the relative dose due to different radioactive elements expressed as percentages. Are things now more clear ?Cadmium

K. my neptunium column is empty tho and I have 2 caesium, ruthenium and cerium columns. ie. I have 15 categories and 13 data sets. --Deglr6328 15:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I combined the two cerium and ruthenium isotopes together to make totals for Ce and Ru, you may have to shift a few columns around to get the table back to the way it should be. I kept the two cesium isotopes separate as they have very different half lives. Also the Cs is a major gamma source while some of the others which got lumped together are minor by comparison.Cadmium

22 Na

Thanks. It's quite possible I misread it, especially since that particular experiment was over 2 years in the past. Thanks for checking. -Loren 03:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

sure :-) if it IS 22-Na you could check it again with your geiger counter and it should read ~1.5 mr/hr! :)--Deglr6328 03:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well... that was from my senior physics lab 2 years ago so it's kind of impossible for me to check now (not that I'd like to be standing next to it if it were 27 Na). I admit my chemistry skills have atrophied somewhat since then. ;) -Loren 03:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

:) :) --Deglr6328 04:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Deuterium lamps

You are certainly correct that the spectra of D2 lamps cannot/should not differ significantly from H2 gas-discharge lamps. All these are simple plasma discharge lamps, like the carbon arc lamp, but using H. You can see spectral aborption lines superimposed on the main radiation, but where does THAT radiation come from?? It's not blackbody. Some kind of thermoluminescense like lime-light and thorium gas mantles?? This whole thing is very confusing to me. D2 lamps are common in UV spectrophotometers as convenient medium power (20 watt) UV light sources that go all the way down to 100 nm or so. And I've read that their UV power and stability is superior to H2 lamps (though perhaps not by a lot-- enough to make them). But WHY should this be? Who invented the dang things, and why do they work better with D2? It must be some trick of higher plasma density at the same temp or something, due to the simple increased mass. But it would be nice to explain for the Wiki. Problem is, I can't seem to easily find the answer on the net. Do you know offhand? Sbharris 02:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. I searched for like an hour to try to find a good explanation for the source of the UV continuum in a D lamp. IANAP. I'm still VERY fuzzy on the whole thing but I think the source of the continuum spectrum is from the "smearing out" of the UV lines of the H (or D) discharge. The deuterium lamp is really a deuterium ARC lamp (try searching on "hydrogen arc" continuum) and I think the smearing out of the short wavelengths is due to spectral line broadening type things going on. As to why D instead of H is used, I suspect probably because it is a bit heavier and doesn't diffuse out of the bulb as quickly (slower movement of molecules). Though this is a guess. We should really get an actual physicist in on this. --Deglr6328 03:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I did get the arc connection, which is how I found out as much as I did. Carbon arc, hydrogen arc-- it's all the same process. More than spectral line broadening or else carbon arcs would give even better UV, yes? Any old gas has lines in the UV since elements in atomic number greater than H all have electrons bound at higher potentials than the 13 eV of atomic H. What's the process?? I guessed the same as you about lamps lasting longer due to lower diffusion, but one article really did claim the UV spec from D2 was stronger (more intense, not different frequency). So there's something very odd here.Sbharris 05:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh. The answer appears to be "molecular emission" as what is responsible for the broadband continuum spectrum. Spectral broadening may play a very small roll but who knows. We were assuming all the light had to come from radiative transitions of lone hydrogen or deuterium ATOMS when actually it is the D₂ species in these lamps that causes the continuum spectrum via radiative decay of MOLECULAR electronic states. Just like a sulfur lamp does except with D2 instead of S2 the peak of the emission curve is shifted down by like 300nm. (apparently) This paper is helpful [15] page 8. At least I THINK this is correct. Why is D2 brighter than H2 in the UV for these lamps? Who knows but I suspect the answer involves understanding incredibly complex QM calculations way beyond me. It may have something to do with the fact that since the D2 molecule is more massive than H2 its vibrational trasitions (modes? is that the term?) that give rise to the continuum are slightly shifted....or....something... --Deglr6328 06:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I spent another fruitless hour looking for the answer, but have no doubt that you're right. I found a paper by some guy who spent his life cataloging 20,000 + spectral lines in the molecular emission spectrum of D2, mostly UV, so it's a big nasty thicket with at least 50 electronic exitation modes, and each of these has its own ro-vibrational pattern. Apparently like all gasses the emission into the electronic ground is always into some highly excited rovibrational state, and the population of *those* (the ground state "target") is what sets the emission probability-intensity. And since D2 vibrational modes are only spaced at 1/root2 = 70% of those of H2, they come cheaper. It's the same thing that gives you bigger vibrational heat capacity at lower temps for diatomic gases of higher mass-- narrower quantum spacing of vib modes due to that mass term in the denominator of frequency^2. And yes it's weird physics--- homopolars have no intrinsic dipole so are inactive to direct (usually microwave and IR) exitation of rovibrational modes. But their ro-vib spacing shows up in Raliegh-like and Raman-like shifts in electronic transitions, which actually do cause induced dipole states that couple to photons (which is why this all works with homopolars like H2 and N2 and O2 and so on). Anyway, I'm sure about the big molecular UV spectrum of H2 and D2, but only moderately sure that my presumed explanation for the intensity of the D2 molecule is the answer. I found one guy speculating that the reason D2 gives brighter plasma light is that excitative momentum transfer by free electrons in plasma to molecules (a big excitation mechanism in arcs) is more efficient the heavier the target (less recoil). It's supposed to be an effect big enough to make a difference. But he didn't know for sure about D2. So fundamentally I still have no authoritative answer for this. Will be fun to Wikify, when I do. Sbharris 07:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Started the article. Deuterium arc lamp.--Deglr6328 05:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky

Thanks for adding a new picture. Ladlergo 13:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Molecular emission

Hi Deglr,

Thanks for your kind words on the Sulfur lamp article. It's still a work in progress, I'm trying very hard to understand the technology of it. It's far beyond the scope of my basic physics training. I've located a few articles that seem relevant to the topic of molecular emission: Molecular radiation, Vibronic transition, and Franck-Condon principle. Is molecular radiation the same as molecular emission? Since you're probably more schooled in these things that I, I figured I'd leave it up to you to decide. Thanks. SDC 20:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly you probably have a better understanding than me. I was trying to figure out (as you can see above) how the heck something can emit radiation like this [16] without it being blackbody emission. I remembered reading something you wrote on S lamps about that emission curve being due to molecular emission and not atomic emission. a few searches later.... yes I do think that molecular emission and molecular radiation are the same thing. --Deglr6328 20:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Commons:Image:Fibreoptic.jpg

Hi Deglr6328, you have uploaded a new image on commons under the name commons:Image:Fibreoptic.jpg. A very nice image, no question, but I have reverted it because you have covered another image with this new upload. It is a complete different image under a complete different licence.

Please, upload your new image to another filename. Thank you. --Raymond de 10:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Bubble_Memory.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bubble_Memory.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

removed images from Library of Alexandria

I removed the images from Library of Alexandria because they're modern reconstructions with no basis in archaeological evidence. Plus, they look silly. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

So I guess that's why they're clearly already labelled as reconstructions then. They're the only representations we have and belong in the article. --Deglr6328 02:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Some reconstructions are good and based on archaeological evidence. The reconstructions from "Cosmos" aren't based on any physical evidence; they're based on an artist's imagination more than anything. We really have no idea what the library looked like. I'd rather have no images than misleading ones, and poor quality ones at that. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine. what about now as a compromise? surely the depiction of "armaria" can't be all that off. --Deglr6328 02:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to object to keeping that picture in the article, but I still don't think it's very good. First of all, it doesn't depict armaria, which are cabinets with doors, as the caption says. So, if you read the caption carefully, it's actually saying that the picture isn't accurate. The bigger problem I have with both images is that it doesn't look like Hellenistic architecture. The color of the columns, the arrangement of the cabinets, the patterns on the floor, and the placement of the columns by the walls look wrong, and the total effect seems more like a computer game's idea of baroque architecture than a depiction of a 3rd century BC building. I doubt that we could find a better reconstruction drawing, because we don't have enough data on what the library looked like. Perhaps the article can be spruced up with images of ancient papyri, or of other ancient libraries, or something. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. geez. you're nothing if not persistent. ok get rid of it and copy all this to the talk page. I will start looking for more appropriate images at the usual sources.--Deglr6328 16:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not going to object to keeping it. If I find better images I will put them in. Shouldn't we all be persistent in the pursuit of accuracy? --Akhilleus (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism ?

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, such as those you made to Inertial fusion power plant, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Also, make sure to use an informative edit summary for such edits. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you.

Same comment for Inertial confinement fusion.

May I assume a strong competition between two laboratories ?

Croquant 15:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are referring to about the competition. I will discuss on the talk page. --Deglr6328 16:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the dispute resolution process

We're already well into an RfC with Eric Lerner. See Talk:Eric Lerner for more. --ScienceApologist 16:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Deglr6328 attacks at Eric Lerner

Just to let you know that I've reported your behaviour on the Wiki noticeboard. --Iantresman 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

wow great, good for you, looks like that's really working out well for you too huh since no one seems to be agreeing with you?--Deglr6328 18:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about this. Ian tries it all the time and it never gets anywhere. He hasn't figured out how to get people to pay attention to his complaining about "bias". --ScienceApologist 18:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Technicality

Technically, that last edit of Eric's was not vandalism. Be careful in edit summaries. Ian likes to get snippy. --ScienceApologist 21:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Blue light from synchrotron

Hi, sorry, I have been extremely busy lately, but the revert of the image caption in synchrotron light is ok. Usually synchrotron beamlines produce monochromatic radiation which is above the visual spectrum in energy, so some kind of inelastic or fluorescence process is needed to produce visible light. But, maybe this beamline is actually producing light in the visible region. tpikonen 18:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Galileo’s RTGs

I don’t believe for a second that this is a “whacky conspiracy theory”. Is it merely a coincidence that the black spot appeared at exactly the correct time one would expect it to were the story true? Is it so hard to believe that the pressure at 600km beneath the upper limits of Jupiter’s atmosphere could crush a plutonium 238 pellet to supercritical mass and initiate a chain reaction leading to a nuclear explosion? I don’t believe so and it’s only a link anyway. To prevent anymore hostility I won’t insert it again, but I think it was wholly unreasonable to remove the link with the note “no way is that going in here!” Miller 14:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any idea who runs that site? Its conspiracy weaving nutjob extraordinaire Richard Hoagland. The fact that you trust anything at all that you see on that website betrays the fact that you either didn't do the slightest research on the topic or simply didn't care. There is NO WAY any links to "enterprisemission.com" belong in any reputable science related article. Do you also have any idea how many times the hilariously laughable galileo/plutonium/jupiter explosion theory nonsense has been debunked by scientists and journalists alike? [17]. --Deglr6328 05:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I feel suitably chastised now. Sorry dad, I won’t go near that nasty site again. And to answer your questions: no I honestly did not know who ran the site or how many times it’s been debunked and I wasn’t doing a particularly large amount of research on the subject, I just found an interesting story which seemed plausible when I read it. Am I grounded now? Can I still have my pocket money? Miller 18:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The way I interpreted the story on the site I read, a contrast to the site you’ve given, is that this was an accident and not a dastardly plot to blow up the planet. If I read your site first I would have known it was bullshit! Miller 18:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well its too late now, I have already revoked your weekly allowance and you are hereby grounded for a month.--Deglr6328 19:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

We generally call it pocket money in England. OK thanks for helping to keep Wikipedia clean and I’ll pay more attention when I come across a story as unlikely as that in the future! Miller 22:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheerio --Deglr6328 03:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Lise Meitner 1900.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lise Meitner 1900.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ...And Beyond! 20:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Its a hundred years old. It doesn't matter where it came from. --Deglr6328 03:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Plots

Thanks for the compliment. I use Photoshop.Somoza 12:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were referring to the diagrams in the franck condon principle or others. I collected the data last week from a sample I was preparing and imported the two columns of data into Sigmaplot. From Sigmaplot I print the finished graph to a file using a printer driver that supports EPS (HP Color LaserJet 4600 PS, downloaded from the web). Formerly I exported directly from Sigmaplot to some graphics format but it seems like all of the export filters in Sigmaplot became corrupted and rather than reinstall I figured out the print to file system. The cropping and conversion from the EPS file to PNG was in photoshop. Let me know if you need any further details.Somoza 13:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

great! thanks! --Deglr6328 22:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Scintillation counter image

Sorry that Image:Quintote_colony_counter.jpg apparently wasn't what it said it was. I retrieved this image from http://visualsonline.cancer.gov along with the captions indicating that this was a scintillation counter. Here's a link to the same, which I hadn't provided in the original upload of the image: http://visualsonline.cancer.gov/details.cfm?imageid=2044

The site's well organized and the captions coherent, so I thought I made a good call assuming it was it said it was. Sorry about that, and thanks for the catch. My goal is to help Wikipedia to be as rich and complete as possible, and I certainly intended to improve, not compromise, the article.

Peer review

Peer review is for the review of articles, so I'm not quite sure what you are trying to do. I've removed the broken link for the moment, but if you let me know what you wanted to do, I'll try and help. Yomangani^talk 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi ya I know I just didn't know where else to put it. I am marking up the visible and UV light emission spectrum of a deuterium lamp discharge with notations such as "fuclcher band" "continuum emission" etc. and I want to know from others more familliar with molecular band emission if I have done an ok job on it.....--Deglr6328 00:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah...yes, that is tricky. You could add it to the deuterium lamp article and then request a peer review on that article specifically mentioning you are only interested in the illustration (although I wouldn't hold my breath for responses you might get lucky) or perhaps try the talk page at Wikipedia:Chemistry. Cheers Yomangani^talk 00:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

High-Z

You did some cleanup in Laser Mega, but one of the links is wrong, it links to "high impedance" instead of "heavy metal". I would argue that "heavy metal" is a better term anyway, the average reader would seem to be much more likely to understand it at first glance.

Also, I'm questioning my own terminology that I've used in several of these articles. In all of the public information about these devices, the civilian fusion research side is stressed. They either ignore the x-ray issue entirely, or alternately say what I copied into the articles, that it's more efficient. But after comparing the indirect drive systems in the US (and France) with the direct drive systems in Japan, as well as the PDD papers from Omega, it seems that the only reason one would use the indirect drive is for bomb research. Do you think this is accurate? Maury 13:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

EM separation

Hmm, I think you're right — I got my colors mixed up. I will switch them around later today. --Fastfission 20:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Biological cell.png

Oh my god... ridiculolus. Fredil Yupigo ^{What has Wikipedia become?} 20:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry!

Hi - I didn't mean to be anonymous when I fixed a small typo on your user page (16:55, 9 October 2006), but I wasn't logged in at the time. Best - Peter 01:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

no problem. I always misspell that word. :) --Deglr6328 01:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Darn,,,

Looks like a bit of an impasse in the laser articles, I've got a big e-mail out to one of the main HiPER guys with some tech questions, but nothing back yet. Can you believe they actually picked a name that's already being used for a laser at GEKKO?!? I mean, come on guys!

Anyway I'm also gathering materials for the NOVA article, which is in a sorry state. Anything you wanted to do before I jumped it?

It's also interesting to see all the fallout from the fast ignition approach. It seems that any idea of using ICF for commercial power disappeared after NOVA and the MJ-level ignition requirements, and since then every design has been weapons related (GEKKO and Omega pre-date this realization?). But now the compression levels needed are so much lower to get reasonable gains that everyone's jumping back in. Even heavy-ion compression is starting to see development, there's a couple of good intro-level LLNL articles on it and it seems they're really looking to do a testbed in the next little while. 20-40% electrical-to-compression, beats the heck out of lasers! There's even some sort of canadian team getting going out west (I wonder if Triumf would be useful for this stuff?)

I might be a little busy over the next couple of days, my Mac Pro should be arriving shortly and I'll likely be playing with that a bit. 30" screen... mmmmmmm I'm also in a bit of an edit war in the CANDU article (hey, would you mind taking a look and telling me if I'm full of it?) that I'd like to cool off from.

BTW I noticed the post above. You might want to try the Firefox 2 beta some time. It has a built-in spell checker that isn't all that smart but still gets 95% of the dumb things I type.

Maury 21:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Diode pumped lasers

Do you happen to have any info on the diode-laser pumped lasers (geez, what a name!)? I'm curious how efficient they are end-to-end. I assume that they are less efficient than a lamp in terms of the total amount of light produced for any given input electrical feed, but I'm also guessing that they are considerably more efficient overall because the light can be tuned to the pumping frequency as opposed to being broadband; but are the xenon lamps really white? And are the diodes actually inefficient? Maury 12:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Try here. [18]. I think the electricity to IR conversion is something like 10-20 times higher theoretically due to the more efficient coupling of the diode bar output at like 900nm to the Nd absorption band around there.--Deglr6328 15:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, it's just what I was looking for. 10 to 30% overall electrical-to-laser conversion is pretty interesting. Fun to speculate: ~250 kJ of laser needed for fast ignition, so that's ~2 MJ of electrical at 10%, and you get back ~25 MJ of power. That's real end-to-end gain for the first time. Sadly I'll be an old man before we know for sure if it works. Maury 16:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Who knows what will happen in the next 10 years though. We've only had lasers for not even 50 years and we've only been doing laserfusion for like the past ~30. No one predicted the invention of chirped pulse amplification in the mid-'80s and look at where that's moved things (just a couple weeks ago someone accelerated electrons to >1GeV in less than a few centimeters (!!) using a CPA laser[19]). Things may happen faster than anyone suspects. --Deglr6328 17:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sandia image

Why are you so sure that the image from the Sandia web site was created by a US government agency? Does the site say so? Dicklyon 05:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Um yes? I put the link to the image on the sandia site RIGHT in the caption. http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2005/optics-lasers/lightsimple.html all images created by sandia just like all other govt. labs is PD.--Deglr6328 00:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase the question. Why do you assume that all images created by "govt. labs" are PD? The website clearly displays a "copyright 2006 Sandia Corporation" in various places. They also do give explicit permission for press to use the image, but that's not the same as it being PD or suitable for use in Wikipedia. Dicklyon 00:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Essentially it boils down to it not mattering what their website claims on the issue. Sandia is run by Lockheed Martin FOR the US gov just like LLNL and LANL are run by U Cali. it does not surprise in the least that a huge military industrial megacorporation like LM would try to slap a copyright on anything and everything it touches including the products of Sandia, but the claim is irrelevant. All information produced by a government agency/lab or by workers at national labs is in the public domain. Everything these labs do (that is unclassified)are works by and or for the federal government and are by definition in the public domain. end of story as far as I'm concerned. --Deglr6328 02:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed in your talk that you have a "doesn't matter" attitude toward copyrights. To the wikipedia, however, it might matter, as they're trying to stay clean and have materials that others can freely distribute without complications. If you claim PD based on your opinions, instead of on the objective evidence, you risk harming the wikipedia. Take a look at Template_talk:PD-USGov-DOE, and see if you can get your opinion accepted there, after which maybe there will be a reasons for others to follow it; it points out reasons why we can use LANL images, but not LBNL images, for example; but Sandia is definitely out. Dicklyon 03:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

that's nice, have fun finding and individually relabeling all the other sandia images already on here then.--Deglr6328 04:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in policing the wikipedia; I just happened on this image and wondered what was its license basis, and when I found it was "made up" decided to say so. Dicklyon 05:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

wow so every single other person who has uploaded an image from sandia and labeled it in the exact same way I did (which in fact appears to be the case) was simply making it up. what a striking conincidince. --Deglr6328 05:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how one could conclude that, but, yes, it does seem likely, at least for many or most of them, the the PD status was simply made up based on wishful thinking or copycat behavior. Dicklyon 06:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to just jump into the discussion like this, but the easiest way to ascertain the copyright status of the photo might be to contact Sandia's media liason, Michael Padillla (mjpadil AT sandia.gov (505) 284-5325). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I just called Mike. Great guy! I explained the situation and tried to outline the question about PD and the gov and all, but he didn't seem absolutely sure one way or the other. So I sent him an e-mail with a link to the tags page; he said he could take a look and see if any one of the applies. My only concern here is that we might get a "no" from their lawyers even if they are not allowed to do so -- lawyers tend to play it safe, and, sadly, this is the safe answer. Maury 22:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

RE:Abbey Road

I deleted some unnecessary photos like the one of the Cassini team crossing Abbey Road; a funny but UNNECESSARY image.

I also think that the page looks very chaotic with all these images.

Roeptin

Nova

Well I finally got around to making a stab at the Nova article. However it is seriously lacking detail in the conclusions area, and I was wondering if you could expand that portion?

If I understand it correctly, one of the solutions to this problem was the use of a single pre-amplified master source. I originally thought this had been used on Nova too, but lacking a single source that states this, I removed this claim. Ok, so that solves the problem with the isotropy of the initial pulse, but how did the solve the problem of the different beamlines' amps generating slightly different amounts of amplification? It would seem that this would be the "big problem" anyway? Maury 13:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Good job! I'll pop over for a few more edits. I'm not sure about the pre-amp source thing but the main problem of implosion asymmetry on NOVA were (I think), in order of increasing "seriousness": beam-beam power imbalance, "intrabeam" power imbalance (filamentation, hot spots in a beam) and capsule irradiation anisotropy due to too few (10) beams being used (ie, OMEGA achieves 10¹⁴N/DT-shot while NOVA got only to 10¹³N even though NOVA could deliver ~10-20Kj more to the capsule and this is because OMEGAs 60 beams create a much more smooth irradiation on the capsule surface when they are overlapped there.) --Deglr6328 07:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Triboluminescence

Why do you think the quartz rattles are triboluminescence? — Omegatron 22:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Cuz its light created by charge asymmetry separation upon crystal fracture. I suppose VEEERY strictly speaking its "fractoluminescence" but nearly no one ever uses that term. Some materials are only piezoelectric, some are only triboluminescent, some are both and many are neither. [20] [21].--Deglr6328 22:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And you were there to witness the crystals fracturing? Electrical discharges can be created by deforming piezoelectric materials without fracturing them, too. Talk:Ute_Tribe#Comment on piezoelectricity — Omegatron 08:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

wha? I don't know what you mean. Triboluminescence of SiO2 crystal fracture is well well known. you can buy a little kit from edmund scientific for like 5 bucks or something that includes a pair of quartz rocks that emit lots of light when rubbed against eachother. tribo=rubbing luminescence=light emitting. My first refrence link above discusses in detail the spectra and mechanisms of triboluminescence in crystalline quartz. --Deglr6328 09:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I had one of those as a kid. It was described as a piezoelectric effect. [22] [23] [24] [25] — Omegatron 16:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I really don't know what else I can say. There are several peer reviewed sources attributing the effect specifically to triboluminescence...here's some more [26] [27]. I think the fact that silica exhibits both a piezoelectric effect and triboluminescence accounts for the common public confusion between the phenomena especially because the term triboluminescence is not very well known.--Deglr6328 07:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:History of laser intensity.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:History of laser intensity.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 12:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't find where I got it. Go ahead and delete. --Deglr6328 06:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Rope trick

I've failed to mention this before, but I think the rope trick article is absolutely amazing. I find it astonishing that so much physics can be expressed in a single photograph. I have some background here, so I read it several times just to make sure I fully understood it and every effect being commented on. Geez, bomb fragments are accelerated to speeds greater than the fireball expansion? Who would have thought that up? It makes me laugh just thinking about it. Very cool. Maury 01:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a pretty interesting phenomenon!--Deglr6328 06:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Dose commitment due to internal Po

Please could you tell me more about the data which you added to the Po page. I would like to know overwhat time you are expecting the dose to be delivered, many of the dose per activity values are for isotopes with long biological halflives so it is the cancer risk over the remainder of the lifetime which is being described rather than the internal dose would could cause an acute effect.Cadmium

I don't know, I just used the information from the datasheet I linked to in the page [28]. It goes by absorbed radiation dose over a 50 day biological half life. --Deglr6328 09:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

My reasoning is this, the majority of people exposed to Po-210 are exposed at a low level which will not kill them within 10 biological half lives of a single exposure (even if that exposure induces cancer in them). So becuase about 10 biological half-lifes or more pass between intake and death then it is easy to work out the dose due to an intake using the published data. In the case of a big dose which causes acute (early) death then it is the case that perhapes less than one half life will pass between the intake and death. I think that we need to work out the dose per second due to internal Po, and then intergate it from the time of intake to the time when the dose which will kill has been delivered to the critical organs. I think it is too early at this time to work out a dose per activity in this case, as we do not know some of the facts that we need.

I think that when the body of Alexander Litvinenko is examined then the exact "cause of death" will become more clear. I know that for whole body gamma irradation then if you die within about a week of exposure then it is normally your digestive system which has failed, within a month it is your bone marrow. I suspect that his bone marrow was failing, but in the case of localised irradation or internal exposure the situation can be very different to whole body irradation.Cadmium

My reasoning is that the CEDE for a isotope with a moderate effective half life is for use when considering the dose suffered after injesting a given activity where the organism will live longer than about 10 effective half lives. This would apply to the induction of cancer.

But if you were to injest a very large activity which is able to cause death through acute effects then you can not use the CEDE becuase acute effects are largely controled by dose rate. If you were to be subjected to 10Gy given as Co-60 gamma in one minute then you will be very dead within a few months. However if you get a 10 Gy dose split up into 100 mGy doses where you have a couple of months between each of the doses then you will not die of the acute effects, you might not even notice the effect of each of the doses.

Also if you were to injest an amount of an isotope which would (assuming you were to live for another 40 years) give you a dose of 1 KSv based on the CEDE, but you died after getting a 5 Sv dose then I think it would be wrong to estimate the dose as being the activity multiplied by the CEDE. In this case I would say that it will be more difficult to make the assessment. I would have a good stab at if I was told the mass of the target tissue where the isotope does the critical harm, and details of how the element behaves in the body (how it partions between the different tissues). I would then be able to calculate a daily dose to that organ for a given intake of the radioisotope.Cadmium

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cadmium"

Image:Pitch drop experiment.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pitch drop experiment.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 22:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The moon in muons

Hi there, I just wanted to say thank you for uploading that fabulous picture of the moon's shadow in muons from the Soudan 2 detector. I saw it featured on the muon page. HEL 17:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I like it too.--Deglr6328 01:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I stuck the same illustration in the Cosmic ray article also, where it's just as appropriate (after all being the moon's cosmic ray shadow also). Imagine seeing a shadow underground. If we had a really good neutrino detector we might be able to see something of the same thing, but I doubt it. Too penetrating, at both moon and detector. SBHarris 02:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Arudo Debito

I appreciate the criticism of the Arudo Debito page, but do you think you could be a little bit more specific in your critique? I couldn't find your comments (except for "this is horrifically biased") anywhere on the page and it's hard to clean up unless you're more specific.

--Watchreader 15:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)--Watchreader 15:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

the main offending bit: "Some critics note that it is highly unlikely that anybody but Arudou Debito wrote his own vanity wikipedia article, since, while his book is interesting enough and his points have merit, let's face it, is he really such a historical figure to have a section about his 'early life'? Debito is known as a nice, but quite weird guy around TUJ." has since been removed.--Deglr6328 03:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fiber optic bundle.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fiber optic bundle.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 16:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

We've alreay gone over this above. Its obviously in my opinion public domain like the other countless images from Sandia national labs we have on here but user Dicklyon insisted on retagging it as copyrighted. If this image is deleted I will have to insist on the deletion of all other Sandia labs images. --Deglr6328 22:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the issue, but what it seems to come down to is the question whether employees of Sandia National Laboratories are employees of the U.S. Federal Government. The article doesn't make it seem likely; it says "Sandia National Laboratories, which is managed and operated by the Sandia Corporation (a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation), is a major United States Department of Energy research and development national laboratory", which to me sounds like Sandia employees are employed ultimately by Lockheed, i.e. they are not government employees. The copyright statement at the bottom of http://www.sandia.gov/general/privacy-security/index.html supports the contention that Sandia's works are not to be considered works of the Federal Government. —Angr 23:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok well, what do you suggest....--Deglr6328 23:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hafnium

Hi! I have removed the NPOV-tag from hafnium. Though I do believe that there are parts that could use references (and I have added some {{tl:cn}}-tags, with the notice, that it may need more), and could be rewritten, I don't think that it is POV. An expert tag may be better on those two sections (one of them is referenced). I hope you are willing to help rewrite the sections, as to reflect the current 'state of art', enabling the addition of references to the section, and to discuss the point on the talkpage (I must already confess, it is not my field). Kind regards. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 01:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose.--Deglr6328 01:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Luminol.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Luminol.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

delete. replace with better image Image:Luminol2006.jpg.--Deglr6328 11:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

sulfur hexafluoride videos

Hi, you know that I am a fierce fighter against external links (we are not a directory for external links, external links should be kept to a minimum .. etc. etc.), and have fiercely deleted an external link to a youtube video on sulfur hexafluoride. That video was, IMHO, not suitable for an external link, but now it has reappeared as a reference, and that is indeed the way it could be incorporated. Now a second video has come up in external links, which, to my feeling, should get the same treatment (though this video at least explains what it is doing). Problem with adding text and making this a reference is that I think this might be an experiment that has to be done with some care (heavy gases do suffocate, and if there is too much sulfur hexafluoride in the lungs, there is no oxygen. Now I expect that the, by then panicing, person will start to breath very quick, he might be fine .. but I would not be surprised that people end up fainting with this experiment). I'll leave the EL for now, while I am thinking how to reword, but I'd be gratefull if you could help (I'll also ask on the wikiproject on chemicals). Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

SF₆ doesn't grow on trees. Anyone with access to such a strange gas should CERTAINLY know its properties and associated dangers. If they don't even take the time to read the warnings on the bottle itself or on this wiki page well....that's why we have darwin awards. Wikipedia has articles on how to make things like acetone peroxide, I don't think it should be censored for the benefit of protecting the dumb. As for the second video of voice deepening, I really couldn't care less if that one stays or goes. One video is enough imho and that second one links to a trashy semi-porn site anyway. --Deglr6328 10:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I know it does not grow on trees, but it might be available in chemistry labs, where dumb-ass students do have access to it. The synthesis of acetone peroxide is minimal (per wp:not, not a manual, and if not, I will cut it down again), without extra knowledge you can't synthesise it (which is impossible for SF6 anyway). I will move that link with discussion to the talkpage. Thanks for the thoughts, anyway! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Light emitting diodes

I have made a suggestion on the talkpage of User:Miwaya in an attempt to resolve the edit-warring on light emitting diode. Could you have a look? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

He is obviuosly intent on whitewashing history to remove any mention of Nakamura having invented the led. His IP is from Nagoya Japan, home of Nagoya University's Isamu Akasaki and a branch of Nichia. He has used several sock puppets to edit out valid refrences and I'll probably spend as little time as I can trying to reason with him since he seems nearly totally unwilling to discuss his edits. --Deglr6328 18:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that already, he is not listening to any hints. I came into this 'war' because of GaN, where he was doing strange edits (not according to MOS etc.) and I may have had a serious clash with one of his sockpuppets earlier (though I don't know if that is the same person, but it is in related areas and the type of edits have relations as well). I hoped to try and get to a workaround, but the suggestion is completely ignored by him as well as the hint to discuss on talkpages (which I have done a couple of times). I'll stick with the current version. Cheers anyway. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Have your thought of requesting clarification here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets? — Sebastian 04:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured picture promotion!

An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:High Resolution Solar Spectrum.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! KFP (talk | contribs) 00:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Spectrum of halophosphate

I'd like to use this image in my thesis. I need a real name to cite it. I'm new to wikipedia, and don't know how to work around the name/email problems. Thanks! Abee60 18:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)