Also, welcome to wikipedia. If you have any trouble in the future, don't hesitate to ask. ( TimothyRias ( talk) 15:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC))
Thanks for the explanation. It seems I have just another problem touching "black hole" My change in the article "gravitational singularity" was removed with the short comment. "no OR" I wonder whether this, compton length of a mass M, thus no true singularity, even a magnitude estimate how far the matter density may increase due to uncertianty principle, can be given should be put on "your" :) black hole page.
Welcome to Wikipedia. The
recent edit you made to the page
User:Llamadog903 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the
sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative
edit summary. You may also wish to read the
introduction to editing. Thank you.
J.delanoy
gabs
adds 13:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I did a tit-for-tat as you did for the beta-stable isobar page I m CURRENTLY working on! Regards
Please remember to
assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Whoa whoa, calm down. I reverted it because it sounded nothing like an article.
Abce2|
Access
Denied 14:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
But the reverted you prefer did? You are pulling my leg! Please be more sincerely and don't delete important informations -- or you should change your judge which could be an article. :-( It is especially ennoying if you (in this case me) currently working/editing on the page. Regards
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept
original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Please stop, your adding your personal opinions to the article so much that it can't be rewritten
Please rewrite what you put in the article so that it express neutral point of veiw, no personal opinions, and sounds like an e Abce2| Access Denied 14:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I've done the best I could to the article. Please don't add anymore things with I or you in the article. Abce2| Access Denied 14:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I want to do EXACLT this, but you prevented it!! :-( Please correct all the erros I still have seen, I'm tired of fighting against your removing-attitude. :-(
Image: you are currently working have made many changes in a preview, want to store and then there is an edit-conflict!! VERY innoying if this ocvcurs several time in the row provocated by the some guy. :-(
Well, I'm sorry if I've edited "Your" article. Abce2| Access Denied 14:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It is not "my" article (as you know), but I create this page yesterday (a proposal in beta-decay article-discussion), and I was pleased in the night to give more background information (there was no backgrund information when I created the page containing only the the first 20 and last 20 nuclides.
You should / could excuse for disturbing my editing and deleting twice every explanation on this page! :-(
This would sound sincerely, and not ironically. Regards
Achim1999 (
talk) 15:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
1I never deleted anything on you talk page, and 2. What I ment was that you were acting like I was always wrong. I am sorry if I offended you but you might want to listen to other's ideas before considering them wrong. Abce2| Access Denied 15:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
I wrote an the talk page of User:Nergaal:
1) I ASKED whether I should consider this as vandalism!
2) Whether his behaviour is annoying to me, I judge!
3) I get no answer of my question "why ...." from him!
against is not the opposite of preferable as you cited above. I called his behaviour autocratic, because he did not annouce or ask for permission on the article-talk page. And if such behaviour is in the guidlines of WP, then I think WP has too much authors and can complete this article without my support by such editors! Argh!
BTW: Why do we not discuss on his page who cause this problem! Where I start to get a reasoning of his dones. Is this against WP-guidelines?
Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Achim1999. I'm glad to see you contributing to Wikipedia and that other editors have already welcomed you, with a few links to information you will find useful.
Regarding the implicit question in one of the comments made on one of your edits to the noble metals article: "I don't know what the sense is, to want to get a citation for nearly every sentence. (add one which already was given by external links)", I would offer a couple of thoughts. WP:V and WP:CS are good general sources for information about the importance of verifiable information and the utility of inline citations. It is not necessary that every sentence be cited; for example, if all of the important assertions of an entire paragraph are supported in a single verifiable source, then one inline citation at the end of the paragraph is sufficient. But it is important that all claims be supported by specific citations, and it is not sufficient to say that "somewhere in the webpages of all the external links, all these claims are supported." That is to say, it is important that a reader of Wikipedia be able to see a claim, and if possible, link directly to the source. Thus 'ref'-tags and '{reflist}' are your friends, as they support inline placement of sources and a clean and easy collection of the references at the end of each article. Hope this helps. Thanks again for your contributions. But do ensure you have verifiable secondary or tertiary sources for all claims you wish to assert in an article. N2e ( talk) 21:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to go into the discussion of metalloid vs. metal! I simply want to point out, that the reader should use (accept) the definition given in WP and then it is only a logical conclusion what I state. I think you and probably other readers misunderstood my formulation. :) Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 21:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Lets go step by step. A search for "semi-noble metals" on google or google books returns few counts. Why do you think this term should be mentioned on WP ? Materialscientist ( talk) 11:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I just was trying to write you a small please to have a look at the end of the Talk-page of Talk:Noble metals on your User-talk page.
I learnt this word/term "semi-noble metals" first at school and later it appeared in textbook of inorganic chemistry at university. I admit there was no general definition given, but that Copper is called not a noble metal but a "semi-noble metal" crossed several times my way in life. :) Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 11:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, now your problem and a minor of mine is already resolved by using a more special formulation in the paragraph to be discussed. :) Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 11:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that the misnamed article is a typo of a form that can be reasonably expected to occur; as such, we can leave it in. Misnamed talk pages, on the other hand, don't really make sense. DS ( talk) 12:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Phase diagram of carbon, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the page and leave a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 11:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Deletion happend now and it is okay. Achim1999 ( talk) 13:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I know its annoying, and have it myself everyday. It is impossible to predict who will edit an article when, thus rules don't exist. I myself always have a cache of my edit (if your browser doesn't support that, you can just select and copy your text into a buffer before saving), and thus just paste it after someone's edit - it is very rare that edits overlap. If they do, I re-write considering the previous edit. Thanks for your recent additions to arsenic, phosphorus and carbon. Materialscientist ( talk) 11:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
10132.5 kPa = 100.00 atm, so I guess the publish values was 100 atm which afterwards was converted into Pascal. Here is a 1985 value for the triple point of carbon: 4247 K, 1.0436*10^7 Pa. [1] I will try to get a more recent data publication for C triple point. Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Still in September 2001, the data was dubious. :-( See "Once more about the experimental investigation of the thermal properties of carbon", EÂ I Asinovski|¯, A V Kirillin, A V Kostanovski|, Physics ± Uspekhi 46 (12) 1305 ± 1306 (2003) Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 15:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2004.12.027 "Measurements of the melting point of graphite and the properties of liquid carbon (a review for 1963–2003)", A.I. Savvatimskiy, from Carbon, Volume 43, Issue 6, May 2005, Pages 1115-1142
Data from April 2003, Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 15:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
graphite−L−V triple point are 4766 K and 10.3 MPa from "Refined Phase Diagram of Boron Nitride", ladimir L. Solozhenko* and Vladimir Z. Turkevich, Institute for Superhard Materials of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev 254074, Ukraine J. Phys. Chem. B, 1999, 103 (15), pp 2903–2905 DOI: 10.1021/jp984682c Publication Date (Web): March 26, 1999
Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 15:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The best/newest reference from July 2007 I found up to now:
"Size-Dependent Temperature-Pressure Phase Diagram of Carbon", C. C. Yang and S. Li J. Phys. Chem. C 2008, 112, 1423-1426, DOI: 10.1021/jp076049+
I cite: "However, evidenced that the graphite/liquid/gas triple point is at 4800 ( 100 K and 0.01-0.1 GPa, providing an accurate correction on Bundy’s result.5-9 As a result, the point (4800 K, 0.01 GPa) was used as the graphite/liquid/gas triple point in our considerations."
Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 15:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
However, the recent researches experimentally evidenced that the graphite/liquid/gas triple point is at 4800 ± 100 K and 0.01-0.1 GPa, providing an accurate correction on Bundy’s result.5-9 At least you may be interested in the first reference [5]: Korobenko, V. N. Experimental investigation of liquid metals and carbon properties under high temperatures. Ph.D. Thesis, Associated Institute for High Temperatures, RAS, Moscow, 2001
And another cite from an abstract: Reliable experimental data for the graphite melting point are presented: enthalpy of solid state under melting (10.5 kJ/g); enthalpy of liquid state under melting (20.5 kJ/g); heat of graphite melting (10 kJ/g); liquid-carbon resistivity (730 μΩ cm) near the melting point at a density of 1.8 g/cm3 under high pressures (several GPa); estimation of expansion (70%) during melting at 100 MPa pressure; and melting temperature Tm = 4800 ± 100 K at a pressure 10–100 MPa. Most of these data are obtained by electrical fast heating (1–5 μs), that are supported by the data of carefully executed laser-pulse heating.
from Measurements of the melting point of graphite and the properties of liquid carbon (a review for 1963–2003)
Could it be that you are right? For about 20 years since 1976, there were nothing experimentally done? But today is 2009 , not 1999. :-)
Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 15:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
In fact, we are in a crazy situation in English Wikipedia:
It follows that, on most math articles, one can not use the default version of MathJax (there are patches, but one may not ask all readers to load them), and thus that < should be used in math.
There are several thread on the subject in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics
D.Lazard ( talk) 16:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
On No-three-in-line problem, the items in the section you called "Literature" are actually (also) reference for the article. The article uses a "Harvard" style of citations. See Harvard citation. Justin W Smith talk/ stalk 21:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Every statment must be searched in the given literature list! A precise reference, like I gave indictates exactly where the source for my statement is! It is a question whether one likes higher quality or not! So I conclude: in this article low reference quality is wanted.
Hi
Just recently you added a reference for Xe-136 half-time detection. Unluckily it is the first to break the readability of the table. I would suggest add a further column generally to add references nuclide-specific. Many(!) data are disputable, even in physics review level.
But what is more important, I worry who added this nonsense (to be precise, off-topic and ill-defined) about short-living natural nuclides? Why are they mentioned in this article, at all? It is highly dubious, because any nuclide which can be created by cosmic rays will be produced sooner or later! It is only a question how long and with which effort you try to detect them. Thus, I think almost all sentences where "natural short-living" occured should be deleted in this article, IMHO. :-/
The first paragraph of this message triggered to write this message to you, but I always thought whether and when to expand this list further. I stopped when expanding the list up to half-life of 1 hour, because to my knowledge all nuclides with Z < 96 which will still be dedected will have half-lives < 1 h -- rather good models exist for years (good enough to get these limits). There will surely be further nuclides with Z >= 96 which half-lives > 1 h -- noone knows how many. Critical are the half-lifes of the unknown nuclides Pt-204, Hg-210 and Po-220 (the next are Pu-247, Pu-248, Cm-252) and this status now keeps since more than 10 years. :-( I wonder whether it makes sense to add a new batch of nuclides, all those up to ... X min half-life?
I like to hear your opinion to all 3 points -- I'm afraid there are much too less experts on wikipedia, that it would make sense to add all literature references for the data. Thanks, Achim1999 ( talk) 21:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2) Some short-lived (non-primordial) naturally-occuring nuclides are very important-- atmospheric cosmogenic nuclide Be-7, C-14, Cl-36, I-129 and radiogenic nuclides like radon and radium. You will notice that I didn't put them in a table or even list them, but we probably should somewhere (not by half life, but by abundance or activity in the environment). The total number 339 comes from this source: [4] but it's not set in stone, as these include the classic decay chain radiogenics from thorium, U-235 and U-238, and the most well-known cosmogenics like Be-7 and C-14. You're probably right that everything that can be made cosmogenically will be made in atmosphere and upper crust, but there's a HUGE gap between the longest lived primordial Pu-244 and the longest lived purely upper soil cosmogenics like Al-26, Ca-41, etc. Somebody should add up the cosmogenics easily found, along with decay chain radiogenics easily found (perhaps with half lives over 1000 years?) and put them in a table. I really want common radiogenics + cosmogenics. It will always be expanding, but most tables in Wikipedia are expanding. These are important because they are useful, notable, and have been known for a long time.
3) I'm not adverse to a table with isotopes with half lives shorter than 1 hour, but we have about 1000 now and there are several thousand more known, so it's a big job. But surely cosmogenics and radiogenics in the environment with half lives of thousands or even hundreds of thousand years are more interesting? S B H arris 22:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sbharris, in this diff, you added that spontaneous fission may occur in 93Nb and 94Mo. Do you any source where it is written. I looked for a bit and I did not find anything about these nuclei and their hypothetical spontaneous fission. Pamputt ( talk) 11:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The file File:Beta-decay stable line.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Template:Sd1 has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 05:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, welcome to wikipedia. If you have any trouble in the future, don't hesitate to ask. ( TimothyRias ( talk) 15:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC))
Thanks for the explanation. It seems I have just another problem touching "black hole" My change in the article "gravitational singularity" was removed with the short comment. "no OR" I wonder whether this, compton length of a mass M, thus no true singularity, even a magnitude estimate how far the matter density may increase due to uncertianty principle, can be given should be put on "your" :) black hole page.
Welcome to Wikipedia. The
recent edit you made to the page
User:Llamadog903 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the
sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative
edit summary. You may also wish to read the
introduction to editing. Thank you.
J.delanoy
gabs
adds 13:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I did a tit-for-tat as you did for the beta-stable isobar page I m CURRENTLY working on! Regards
Please remember to
assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Whoa whoa, calm down. I reverted it because it sounded nothing like an article.
Abce2|
Access
Denied 14:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
But the reverted you prefer did? You are pulling my leg! Please be more sincerely and don't delete important informations -- or you should change your judge which could be an article. :-( It is especially ennoying if you (in this case me) currently working/editing on the page. Regards
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept
original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Please stop, your adding your personal opinions to the article so much that it can't be rewritten
Please rewrite what you put in the article so that it express neutral point of veiw, no personal opinions, and sounds like an e Abce2| Access Denied 14:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I've done the best I could to the article. Please don't add anymore things with I or you in the article. Abce2| Access Denied 14:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I want to do EXACLT this, but you prevented it!! :-( Please correct all the erros I still have seen, I'm tired of fighting against your removing-attitude. :-(
Image: you are currently working have made many changes in a preview, want to store and then there is an edit-conflict!! VERY innoying if this ocvcurs several time in the row provocated by the some guy. :-(
Well, I'm sorry if I've edited "Your" article. Abce2| Access Denied 14:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It is not "my" article (as you know), but I create this page yesterday (a proposal in beta-decay article-discussion), and I was pleased in the night to give more background information (there was no backgrund information when I created the page containing only the the first 20 and last 20 nuclides.
You should / could excuse for disturbing my editing and deleting twice every explanation on this page! :-(
This would sound sincerely, and not ironically. Regards
Achim1999 (
talk) 15:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
1I never deleted anything on you talk page, and 2. What I ment was that you were acting like I was always wrong. I am sorry if I offended you but you might want to listen to other's ideas before considering them wrong. Abce2| Access Denied 15:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
I wrote an the talk page of User:Nergaal:
1) I ASKED whether I should consider this as vandalism!
2) Whether his behaviour is annoying to me, I judge!
3) I get no answer of my question "why ...." from him!
against is not the opposite of preferable as you cited above. I called his behaviour autocratic, because he did not annouce or ask for permission on the article-talk page. And if such behaviour is in the guidlines of WP, then I think WP has too much authors and can complete this article without my support by such editors! Argh!
BTW: Why do we not discuss on his page who cause this problem! Where I start to get a reasoning of his dones. Is this against WP-guidelines?
Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Achim1999. I'm glad to see you contributing to Wikipedia and that other editors have already welcomed you, with a few links to information you will find useful.
Regarding the implicit question in one of the comments made on one of your edits to the noble metals article: "I don't know what the sense is, to want to get a citation for nearly every sentence. (add one which already was given by external links)", I would offer a couple of thoughts. WP:V and WP:CS are good general sources for information about the importance of verifiable information and the utility of inline citations. It is not necessary that every sentence be cited; for example, if all of the important assertions of an entire paragraph are supported in a single verifiable source, then one inline citation at the end of the paragraph is sufficient. But it is important that all claims be supported by specific citations, and it is not sufficient to say that "somewhere in the webpages of all the external links, all these claims are supported." That is to say, it is important that a reader of Wikipedia be able to see a claim, and if possible, link directly to the source. Thus 'ref'-tags and '{reflist}' are your friends, as they support inline placement of sources and a clean and easy collection of the references at the end of each article. Hope this helps. Thanks again for your contributions. But do ensure you have verifiable secondary or tertiary sources for all claims you wish to assert in an article. N2e ( talk) 21:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to go into the discussion of metalloid vs. metal! I simply want to point out, that the reader should use (accept) the definition given in WP and then it is only a logical conclusion what I state. I think you and probably other readers misunderstood my formulation. :) Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 21:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Lets go step by step. A search for "semi-noble metals" on google or google books returns few counts. Why do you think this term should be mentioned on WP ? Materialscientist ( talk) 11:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I just was trying to write you a small please to have a look at the end of the Talk-page of Talk:Noble metals on your User-talk page.
I learnt this word/term "semi-noble metals" first at school and later it appeared in textbook of inorganic chemistry at university. I admit there was no general definition given, but that Copper is called not a noble metal but a "semi-noble metal" crossed several times my way in life. :) Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 11:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, now your problem and a minor of mine is already resolved by using a more special formulation in the paragraph to be discussed. :) Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 11:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that the misnamed article is a typo of a form that can be reasonably expected to occur; as such, we can leave it in. Misnamed talk pages, on the other hand, don't really make sense. DS ( talk) 12:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Phase diagram of carbon, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the page and leave a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 11:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Deletion happend now and it is okay. Achim1999 ( talk) 13:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I know its annoying, and have it myself everyday. It is impossible to predict who will edit an article when, thus rules don't exist. I myself always have a cache of my edit (if your browser doesn't support that, you can just select and copy your text into a buffer before saving), and thus just paste it after someone's edit - it is very rare that edits overlap. If they do, I re-write considering the previous edit. Thanks for your recent additions to arsenic, phosphorus and carbon. Materialscientist ( talk) 11:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
10132.5 kPa = 100.00 atm, so I guess the publish values was 100 atm which afterwards was converted into Pascal. Here is a 1985 value for the triple point of carbon: 4247 K, 1.0436*10^7 Pa. [1] I will try to get a more recent data publication for C triple point. Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Still in September 2001, the data was dubious. :-( See "Once more about the experimental investigation of the thermal properties of carbon", EÂ I Asinovski|¯, A V Kirillin, A V Kostanovski|, Physics ± Uspekhi 46 (12) 1305 ± 1306 (2003) Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 15:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2004.12.027 "Measurements of the melting point of graphite and the properties of liquid carbon (a review for 1963–2003)", A.I. Savvatimskiy, from Carbon, Volume 43, Issue 6, May 2005, Pages 1115-1142
Data from April 2003, Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 15:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
graphite−L−V triple point are 4766 K and 10.3 MPa from "Refined Phase Diagram of Boron Nitride", ladimir L. Solozhenko* and Vladimir Z. Turkevich, Institute for Superhard Materials of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev 254074, Ukraine J. Phys. Chem. B, 1999, 103 (15), pp 2903–2905 DOI: 10.1021/jp984682c Publication Date (Web): March 26, 1999
Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 15:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The best/newest reference from July 2007 I found up to now:
"Size-Dependent Temperature-Pressure Phase Diagram of Carbon", C. C. Yang and S. Li J. Phys. Chem. C 2008, 112, 1423-1426, DOI: 10.1021/jp076049+
I cite: "However, evidenced that the graphite/liquid/gas triple point is at 4800 ( 100 K and 0.01-0.1 GPa, providing an accurate correction on Bundy’s result.5-9 As a result, the point (4800 K, 0.01 GPa) was used as the graphite/liquid/gas triple point in our considerations."
Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 15:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
However, the recent researches experimentally evidenced that the graphite/liquid/gas triple point is at 4800 ± 100 K and 0.01-0.1 GPa, providing an accurate correction on Bundy’s result.5-9 At least you may be interested in the first reference [5]: Korobenko, V. N. Experimental investigation of liquid metals and carbon properties under high temperatures. Ph.D. Thesis, Associated Institute for High Temperatures, RAS, Moscow, 2001
And another cite from an abstract: Reliable experimental data for the graphite melting point are presented: enthalpy of solid state under melting (10.5 kJ/g); enthalpy of liquid state under melting (20.5 kJ/g); heat of graphite melting (10 kJ/g); liquid-carbon resistivity (730 μΩ cm) near the melting point at a density of 1.8 g/cm3 under high pressures (several GPa); estimation of expansion (70%) during melting at 100 MPa pressure; and melting temperature Tm = 4800 ± 100 K at a pressure 10–100 MPa. Most of these data are obtained by electrical fast heating (1–5 μs), that are supported by the data of carefully executed laser-pulse heating.
from Measurements of the melting point of graphite and the properties of liquid carbon (a review for 1963–2003)
Could it be that you are right? For about 20 years since 1976, there were nothing experimentally done? But today is 2009 , not 1999. :-)
Regards, Achim1999 ( talk) 15:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
In fact, we are in a crazy situation in English Wikipedia:
It follows that, on most math articles, one can not use the default version of MathJax (there are patches, but one may not ask all readers to load them), and thus that < should be used in math.
There are several thread on the subject in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics
D.Lazard ( talk) 16:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
On No-three-in-line problem, the items in the section you called "Literature" are actually (also) reference for the article. The article uses a "Harvard" style of citations. See Harvard citation. Justin W Smith talk/ stalk 21:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Every statment must be searched in the given literature list! A precise reference, like I gave indictates exactly where the source for my statement is! It is a question whether one likes higher quality or not! So I conclude: in this article low reference quality is wanted.
Hi
Just recently you added a reference for Xe-136 half-time detection. Unluckily it is the first to break the readability of the table. I would suggest add a further column generally to add references nuclide-specific. Many(!) data are disputable, even in physics review level.
But what is more important, I worry who added this nonsense (to be precise, off-topic and ill-defined) about short-living natural nuclides? Why are they mentioned in this article, at all? It is highly dubious, because any nuclide which can be created by cosmic rays will be produced sooner or later! It is only a question how long and with which effort you try to detect them. Thus, I think almost all sentences where "natural short-living" occured should be deleted in this article, IMHO. :-/
The first paragraph of this message triggered to write this message to you, but I always thought whether and when to expand this list further. I stopped when expanding the list up to half-life of 1 hour, because to my knowledge all nuclides with Z < 96 which will still be dedected will have half-lives < 1 h -- rather good models exist for years (good enough to get these limits). There will surely be further nuclides with Z >= 96 which half-lives > 1 h -- noone knows how many. Critical are the half-lifes of the unknown nuclides Pt-204, Hg-210 and Po-220 (the next are Pu-247, Pu-248, Cm-252) and this status now keeps since more than 10 years. :-( I wonder whether it makes sense to add a new batch of nuclides, all those up to ... X min half-life?
I like to hear your opinion to all 3 points -- I'm afraid there are much too less experts on wikipedia, that it would make sense to add all literature references for the data. Thanks, Achim1999 ( talk) 21:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2) Some short-lived (non-primordial) naturally-occuring nuclides are very important-- atmospheric cosmogenic nuclide Be-7, C-14, Cl-36, I-129 and radiogenic nuclides like radon and radium. You will notice that I didn't put them in a table or even list them, but we probably should somewhere (not by half life, but by abundance or activity in the environment). The total number 339 comes from this source: [4] but it's not set in stone, as these include the classic decay chain radiogenics from thorium, U-235 and U-238, and the most well-known cosmogenics like Be-7 and C-14. You're probably right that everything that can be made cosmogenically will be made in atmosphere and upper crust, but there's a HUGE gap between the longest lived primordial Pu-244 and the longest lived purely upper soil cosmogenics like Al-26, Ca-41, etc. Somebody should add up the cosmogenics easily found, along with decay chain radiogenics easily found (perhaps with half lives over 1000 years?) and put them in a table. I really want common radiogenics + cosmogenics. It will always be expanding, but most tables in Wikipedia are expanding. These are important because they are useful, notable, and have been known for a long time.
3) I'm not adverse to a table with isotopes with half lives shorter than 1 hour, but we have about 1000 now and there are several thousand more known, so it's a big job. But surely cosmogenics and radiogenics in the environment with half lives of thousands or even hundreds of thousand years are more interesting? S B H arris 22:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sbharris, in this diff, you added that spontaneous fission may occur in 93Nb and 94Mo. Do you any source where it is written. I looked for a bit and I did not find anything about these nuclei and their hypothetical spontaneous fission. Pamputt ( talk) 11:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The file File:Beta-decay stable line.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Template:Sd1 has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 05:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)