User talk:Rocket Laser Man

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Survival in the Sky Logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Survival in the Sky Logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I long ago deleted the logo image from the article, although it does not seem inconsistent with fair use. Rocket Laser Man (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Survival in the Sky Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Survival in the Sky Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The logo image is orphaned because I deleted the reference to it as stated above. I found no way to delete the image from wiki completely. Therefore, it remains orphaned. Rocket Laser Man (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Chemical laser article - add Pimentel?

Hello.

I note that you have written at least part of the history section of Chemical laser. As I have just noted on Talk:Chemical laser, George Pimentel is often cited by chemists as the inventor of the chemical laser, and published (at least) two articles on chemical lasers in 1965 and 1967, prior to the 1969 article by Spencer now cited as the "first" chemical laser article (or perhaps the first continuous-wave chemical laser article). I really think his work should be mentioned in the article, but I am not sufficiently expert in lasers to put it into the proper context myself. Could you insert a mention of Pimentel's work? Dirac66 (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks, Dirac66 for bringing this to my attention. I'll be glad to work Pimentel into the article if you can get me the references you mentioned. I am not familiar with his work.

Dirac66: After googling "Pimentel" + "chemical laser" I suggest looking at the following papers which all predate Spencer's 1969 paper.

1. JC Polanyi, J.Chem.Phys. 34, 347 (1961) First theoretical proposal of a chemical laser

2. JVV Kaspar and GC Pimentel, Appl. Phys. Letts. 5, 231 (1964) Preliminary results?

• 3. JVV Kasper and GC Pimentel, Phys Rev Letters 14, 352 (1965) HCl chemical laser, cited in some later reviews as the first chemical laser.
• 4. KL Kompa and GC Pimentel, J Chem Phys 47, 857 (1967) HF chemical laser

5. PH Connell and GC Pimentel, J Chem Phys 49, 1379 (1968) This one has cw in the title, still before Spencer.

I previously mentioned nos. 3 and 4 on Talk:Chemical laser, but forgot to repeat the mention on your talk page, sorry.

These are titles from Google and I have not actually read these papers, so some may be more relevant than others. I think the Wiki article should indicate first what Pimentel did, and then how exactly Spencer etc advanced the field. (Higher intensity?? Better resolution??) Dirac66 (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for addition on Pimentel

Thanks for your quick reading of these papers and additions to the chemical laser article. I think your assessment is correct and gives Pimentel his fair place in this article. I understand your point that his laser was of limited use because external electrical energy is required to generate the reactants (H + Cl) in situ.

Presumably the academic physical chemists who credit Pimentel consider this a technicality. As a chemist I see an analogy to academic organic chemists who credit the synthesis of a molecule to the chemist who first made 100 mg, even if their method is totally impractical for the manufacture of large quantities! Dirac66 02:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation on Connections (TV series)

Thanks for your contributions on Connections (TV series). Unfortunately, official episode descriptions such as the ones copied from http://www.documentary-video.com/items.cfm?id=1070 are a copyright violation, and legally, cannot be accepted. Please see our copyright policy for details. If the content is paraphrased, it would no longer be a copyright infringement, so I encourage you to consider paraphrasing and resubmitting. Thanks, --bd_ (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was afraid of that. I could not remember whether I had written the descriptions or had copied them. I hope that the new descriptions are more helpful to everyone. It seems that I even got some help on one or two episodes. I am going to need to view the episodes in Connections 3 once more to figure out what to write. Thanks, Rocket Laser Man (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic work over there, btw. 'tis appreciated. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Emirates Flight 530

An article that you have been involved in editing, Emirates Flight 530, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirates Flight 530. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ahunt (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

More Rotation of the Earth

Main article geoid

A related observation: the first paragraph states: "The geoid, simply stated, is the shape that the surface of the oceans would take under the influence of gravity alone."

Such a surface would be very nearly a sphere. The reason that the geoid is nearly an ellipsoid is that its shape is due to gravity plus the effect of the rotating earth. The geoid entry in Encyclopedia Britanica includes the statement "This potential function describes the combined effects of the gravitational attraction of the Earth’s mass and the centrifugal repulsion caused by the rotation of the Earth about its axis."

The first paragraph of the current wiki article is therefore misleading and confusing because (1) there is no explanation of why the earth would be an ellipsoid under the influence of gravity alone, and (2) a plumb line is always under the influence of the rotating earth and would therefore not be normal to the geoid if the geoid were due to the influence of gravity alone. I would suggest that this paragraph be changed to be more accurate. "The geoid, simply stated, is the shape that the surface of the oceans would take under the combined influence of gravity and the earth's rotational velocity." Rocket Laser Man (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)