User talk:Maury Markowitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or drop me a line. BTW, I like what you have done to the place. Cheers! --maveric149

Contents

[edit] Archives

WOW! Glad you're on my side ;) Ah the Z80, brings back memories Charles

Maury! No clever handle? What happened to Havok?

You know, this list says a lot about you. I'm afraid now.

— Pandora

Hey Maury, it's Seymour Cray, not Seymore Cray

- JidGom 08:16 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)


What, no Groupware? ;-)

Funny that I just read that List of nuclear accidents page last week and only just now noticed that you're here and contributed to it. I should have known...

-Nick 3/11/04


I've made some changes to the SABRE w/u; please see discussion page.

Hope that's OK, I think it would be a good idea if we discussed any further changes to the piece before making any further big changes. You're obviously making a great contribution; it's a difficult piece to write really, the available information is complex and probably contradictory.

-WolfKeeper


[edit] Help needed

Would you take a look at Chevaline and its history and talk pages? I could really use some help here with a persistant person who I believe is being malicious. I could be wrong, but that's my earnest belief. He is consistently trying to obliterate any reference to a well-recorded event supported by citations that he perceives as critical of the former USSR, when the reference is merely used as background-setting material for other wider issues. There is no criticism of the USSR in my text, and, I've offered to compromise if he will suggest a text. Its not acceptable for someone to persistantly vandalise articles in order to whitewash the Soviet Union. And I'm convinced that is the motivation here. Similar references have been obliterated from other articles, one being Suez Crisis. I've asked two administrators to intervene, but it seems that no one is interested. An object lesson in how to drive away contributors who try to add content and value. Wikipedia won't survive long-term if destructive people are not kept under control. Brian.Burnell 17:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Go Nuts! No chance, I like it. It needed a radical overhaul. I just couldn't see it. Too close to the wood to see the trees. It had got into the state it was by a creeping process of adaptation of various unrelated bits and pieces added by several contributors at different times, with no-one standing back far enough to look ar it critically. Although Dr Richard Moore an expert in this area had given it an OK. But I guess he was not concerned with its style or wiki conventions.
The Khruschev remark was well-documented, but it was not the only example that could be used to illustrate where the UK govt motivation was coming from. Chevaline grew and drew on several different research strands from the decoys and penaids planned for Blue Streak, evolving into similar items for Skybolt, and transferred to Polaris with later addition of the Antelope research strand. A collection of bits and pieces again.
There are illustrations in the pipeline for the Chevaline page, but were being held back until things cooled down a little. I'm not a professional illustrator; its just an enjoyable pastime that relieves stress. After discussions with others about photo copyright issues on wiki I'd concluded that one way to circumvent these probs was to use self-drawn pics where copyright couldn't be challenged. I plan more because in this area of nuclear history the only photos available are likely to be Crown copyright. Although I'm planning to raise this issue with the AWRE technical historian next week. She may be able to grant access to better pics.
Thanks for your help Maury. I feel relieved of a great weight. Brian.Burnell 23:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chevaline illustration

The first of a pair is ready for use if required on the Chevaline page. Its uploaded to Image:Polaris A3TK Chevaline RV and PAC toe-in and tilt-out.gif. 200px should size it similar to the one on the Polaris page. Brian.Burnell 22:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded a pic at Image:Chevaline front end.jpg that we might be able to use if I can resolve copyright issues. I'm uncertain about these at present. And the pic is of poor quality, and I'm hoping to get access to a better quality copy from AWRE. I took a phone call Tues from the MoD about it and they seem to want to help. More on the rocket motor questions shortly. Brian.Burnell 23:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm very glad you are in!. The decoys were 'popped' from the tubes using a small solid rocket motor. The pipes you see are armoured cables running to the tube latches that open the top hatch rather like a lidded beer tankard. The two forward-facing rocket exhausts are the liquid-fuelled manouevering rockets. Liquid-fuelled so that they could be ignited intermittently. The hot gas system exhausts were on the side of the conical structure and were used to turn the PAC on its forward-aft axis. The remaining two rocket motors were solid-fuel and can't be seen on this pic. They were v.large and pointed aft to separate the PAC from the second-stage after tilt-out. The hostility to Chevaline shown by the Navy was in part because the Navy were reluctant to have liquid-fuel stored aboard subs. Remember the Kursk? The RN had a similar experience around 1947-55. The decoy tubes numbered 27 in total and pointed fore and aft, and were of two types, long-throw decoys and short-throw. It was certainly v.complex for a beer keg. The actual PAC structure was of an aluninium-balsawood-aluminium sandwich, and you might have noticed from the Polaris drawing that the nose cone was made of laminated wood. A good trick question for a pub quiz. The illustration in progress shows the sequence from nose cone eject onwards in a series of boxes. Rather like a theatre storyboard format. The uploaded pic will need some work done on it to bring it up to a better quality. Brian.Burnell 23:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
PS. There was also a solid-fuel rocket motor in the flare (or skirt) of each RV to separate the RVs from the second-stage booster and the PAC. Similar to those in the original Polaris A3T. When these motors separated the RVs the second-stage was relieved of their weight and accellerated away between them. That wasn't a prob on A3T but it was with Chevaline, with a number of collisions on test. But all this stuff is really too complicated for a short encyclopaedia article. Brian.Burnell 23:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
PS again. The drawing at Allen Thomson's FAS page you suggested might be cleaned up etc. I got there before you. That is the pic I'm using, cleaned-up, simplified and reduced in size as the basis for my storyboard illustration, which is about ten days away because of other committments. The FAS pic is not complete anyhow. It doesn't show the heatshield, which I'll add. The heatshield was located over the front of the PAC, inside the nose cone to protect the delicate bits other than the RVs from Exit Heating after the nose cone ejected. Exit Heating is the aerodynamic heating generated by the missile accellerating through the v.thin atmo on the upward trajectory. Re-entry heating in reverse. Most pics don't show the heatshield because it can obscure other details. Its still in place at tilt-out and ejected before PAC/RV ejection. The armoured cables referred to above were armoured to protect them from EMP and X-Ray heating from ABM bursts. The glued-on cork sheet also visible in places (and also wrapped around the decoy tubes) was protection from exit heating. Brian.Burnell 07:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Sources for all this material are already cited in the main article, although the principal one is the published papers of the R.Aero Soc, also cited. Its now available in electronic format only from me as a OCR scan. Zipped-up at about 1Mb it can be sent as an email attachment if required. Nose cone removal. The nosecone ejected fairly early and wasn't intended to deal with exit heating, because on original Polaris, exit heating wasn't a prob because A3T didn't have all that delicate kit up front. It still ejected early on Chevaline because the Navy's 'minimum changes' requirement led to the original nosecone and eject control kit being retained on Chevaline. The actual release mechanism was an explosive line charge that severed the nose cone at its base as the eject rocket ignited. You will have gathered from this that exit heating was an unanticipated event that pushed up costs and extended the delays, and early tilt-out also exacerbated exit heating probs. The RVs could deal with it unaided, but the rest couldn't. Brian.Burnell 07:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Message ref penaid deployment and part complete illustration at my Talk page. Brian.Burnell 19:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reply

I replied on my talk page. In short, you will have to hash it out with User:WillowW. BTW, you may want to archive some of your talk page, it takes quite a while to download and render. linas 03:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Chevaline illustration

Is ready. Its inserted into the Chev page below the toe-in tilt-out pic, but might be better relocated to break up the large blocks of text. Its rather large, but thats inevitable given the subject and layout. I see from the new text that you've been assimulating the stuff in the symposium papers. Its quite involved for a beer keg. If there are other illustrations needed elsewhere eg. other pages I'll be happy to help out. Met the resident historian at AWRE Aldermaston on Sunday and had an email from her today ref access to photographs. Not good news. We may need to recourse to the Fair Use provision with Crown copyright photos. Aldermaston have invited me to visit the site next week and I'll raise the photos issue again because the same prob exists across all Wiki UK nuclear weapon pages. Brian.Burnell 22:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. Tilt-out is a bit unnecessary now. But its mainly your text. You decide. A message left on my Talk ref a possible photograph. Brian.Burnell 13:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd really like the word 'free' to be inserted before 'abridged email download' in the external references. It got edited out, but I don't want impoverished students to feel that it has to be paid for. Brian.Burnell 18:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lets get together!

I think we should all sit down and drink and eat and what not. I propose a meetup at Future Bakery, on the corner of Brunswick and Bloor, on Wed. August 16, 2006 @ 7pm. Lets discuss it. joshbuddy, talk 15:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cold Fusion

You made some great changes to the "Cold Fusion" section of the Steven Jones article. I was hoping, however, that you could cite the source for the added info. Thanks, Levi P. 22:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see it in the original edit...my mistake. Cheers. Levi P. 06:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chevaline Redux

Its really good. Streets ahead of what was there before, because I suspect few people understood just how complex Chevaline was. The numbers of targets to be assessed by ABM radars, and the complexity of them is perhaps why the US are still interested in using Chevaline as target practice for their own ABM developments. But I've seen no hard evidence of whether that's true or not.

Just three points to make.
The final section headed 'Description' might be better moved en block to follow the section on Development, with Further Political Developments winding it up.
I agree with you about removing the tilt-out pic, but didn't attempt it myself because I'd like to see an internal link to it on its Image page for those who want a closer look. But I don't know how to do that so left it alone.
The steep reduction in range was a serious issue for the Navy. It shrank their sea-room by 550 nautical miles as the crow flies to Moscow. I've had a think about how that can be emphasised simply, using a map. There are some archived declassified maps of Galosh sites and Soviet radar coverage on all possible Polaris flight paths ending at Moscow. The quality isn't good and are maybe not suitable for wiki in that form. I'll email both for you to judge for yourself. I was thinking though of reversing the usual format and showing a map with Moscow as the radius centre and with all the sea areas that Polaris could hide in at 2500nm range, with the smaller areas for Chevaline superimposed in a different shade. And also showing just a simple coastline and shallow continental shelf areas not suitable for patrolling in. Brian.Burnell 17:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
A curious ref to Chevaline's Harriet primary and its resistance to spontaneous fissioning under ABM attack turned up at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue. The site won't allow direct access. You need to go to the above, and enter 'ES12/307' in the ref search box, or 'Harriet AND ABM'.
The ES ref indicates that the archive originated at AWRE Aldermaston.
The ref to Section 3.4 (of the Public Records Act) indicates that the doc is still classified, but we are allowed to know it exists, and deduce what we can from the titling, thats IMHO a ref to effects other than X-Ray heating, probably neutron flux, and suggests that neutron flux resistance was a feature of the test programme.
There are several docs, some classified, some not, when trawling for refs to ABMs, and might be worth a look. Although they arn't available online. The UK govt is still in the Dark Ages of IT. And the Joint Intel Staff archives might be worth a look for ABM refs. Unfortunately, if ABM doesn't appear in the titling it won't show in an online search. I'll have to pay them a visit. Brian.Burnell 10:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
A request came from a reader (with a British Foreign Ministry e-address !) asking that I share with him the precise National Archives references that are just grouped together as one item in 'References'. I intend to revisit Chevaline and without changing the existing text, insert individual reference notations. After the style used in Violet Club. Its a chore, but will benefit people who want to dig a little deeper. Brian.Burnell 14:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Deployment sequence graphic changes are the result of a visit to see the PAC at RAF Kemble featured in the photo. I've been pondering on how it was possible for the PAC to assume any attitude in space with only the hot-gas jets to rotate it, plus the two rearwards pointing rocket motors (that are not vectoring). At Kemble I found that there are two more hot-gas jet exhausts as shown in the new graphic. These are fuelled from the same hydrazine tank and are on the lower periphery of the PAC spaced at 90° on one side of the PAC only, adjacent to the rotational jets. These would cause the PAC to tumble tail to nose in two directions. There was no mention of these hot-gas jets in any of the literature, and came as a complete surprise, and answers my questions about attitude selection entirely. I'll get some photos on my next visit. Brian.Burnell 22:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] G-lader

hi got your message re the g-type supercharger.... yeah, i also think that's an interesting gadget that deserves some attention, but unfortunately don't have anything on it. i'll keep my eyes open, though. Gzuckier 14:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Look on the AppleSearch talk page.

Mattisse(talk) 13:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fusor

Hi Maury, do you happen to remember the sources used for your major revision of the fusor article on Feb 25, 2003? The edit notes only say "lots of new stuff, sectionized too". I am currently working on the German version of it (which now runs under the German words for "inertial electrostatic confinement", :de:Elektrostatischer Trägheitseinschluss); I have had a look at the article by Hirsch in J. Appl. Phys., but there must be much more that you have used. Many thanks! --Anastasius zwerg 20:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AppleSearch

Since you seem familiar with Wikipedia, then you know that the references at the bottom are not adequate as you read on the talk page. NLOleson 22:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: AppleSearch

That was a summary of these comments of yours:

I'm getting rather tired of your edits, Mattisse. I have asked you on several occasions to point out exactly what your complaints are, but to date you have refused to do so. In the three exchanges so far you have simply invented some other set of complaints instead of answering the questions I asked. One might conclude that you have no basis for your complaints.

In your latest series you have scattered "reference needed" throughout the article. As I have pointed out twice now, once here, once on the article's talk page, the references have been provided. If you could be bothered to read the ones I included, you will note that every place you inserted a "reference needed" is covered in one of the four linked documents. In fact, one of them is the actual software that you stamped with a "reference needed" for its existence!

You appear to have started with good intentions, but your behavior since then appears to be driven largely from hubris.

Maury 14:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

TomTheHand said that, although he found your reaction surprising, he thought you would shape up and that I wasn't realizing you were a newbie. He said if you didn't shape up he would send you a message, which he did:

Maury, the article would benefit from in-line citations. I believe that's what Mattisse is requesting. Yes, the information in the article is from the sources at the bottom, but what information is from what source? TomTheHand 15:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So that is what was going on. We are just trying to get you to source your article properly. Mattisse(talk) 16:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Reading this talk page because you sent me a completely inapropriate note regarding this issue. (Why?) And I find the talk page of AppleSearch more than adequately outlined the problems of your article. Perhaps you are not able to understand? Ask someone more capable to aid you. NLOleson 02:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

(For the reader: Mattisse marked up the article in question with four tags, and didn't bother to post in the talk page why he/she did it. At least some, if not all, of the tags were innappropriate, and as Mattisse didn't respond to questions about them, I removed them all considering them to be an example of drive-by tagging. Mattisse then immediately placed a PROD tag into the article (against rules), and posted in the talk a completely different set of complaints. When I pointed out how they were baseless as well, he/she then made another complaint. I then found that Mattisse was mis-representing this chain of events on several other user's pages, essentially insulting me. I have asked for an appology, this is the response. Here he/she wishes to claim this is all a harmless request for references, which were in the article from before the first tags went on. Feel free to check the histories of all the pages in question. I am not the only person to question this behaviour, the talk page is literally filled with such examples, and Mattisse's edit log is filled almost entirely with PROD tagging and AfD's.)

(Also for the reader: it turns out NLOleson is one of many sockpuppets that Mattisse was operating to post "support" for any controversial edit, including single-purpose accounts for voting in favour of AfD's. Mattisse has since been blocked for this behaviour. You'll note a name-calling post below, along with another "vote of support" message.)

[edit] Gaffitti in Cray?

Dude, what's going on in Cray? You hardly seem the sort to add graffitti. Is someone impersonating you? Maury

You mean the "Pretty cool, huh?" edit to the image caption? Yeah, that was me, I thought it was a pretty apt description for what is generally considered a pretty impressive piece of hardware. --NEMT 19:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are an odd little fellow!

What makes you think I could possibly be interested in your preoccupations and ramblings? NLOleson 00:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

Not a problem, glad to clarify. For the purposes of sourcing, Apple documents in an article about Apple software are considered self-published sources. If you look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves, the guideline places restrictions on what types of information sources of this nature can support. Some of the statements in the AppleShare article conform to this standard (such as system requirements and release dates), while others do not (the section on the Advanced Technology Group, the re-use of code within Sherlock, etc.). More specifically, things of the latter nature conflict with the passage of WP:RS which states that reputable self-published sources should not "involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject". Given this, placing tags asking for more/better verification was not an unreasonable response. I'm sure that truly independent sources could be found without too much work; you just need a library with a stock of back issues from Macworld or MacUser, plus a little free time. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I took a look, and I found a few articles that might be useful, if you can find paper copies of these publications (or don't mind paying for the digital version):

Best of luck! -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

(Non-sequitur: You were there for the Rosebud demo? That's so cool!) Unfortunately, we can't use direct personal evidence, for source reasons, and I'm honestly not sure we'd be able to use it even if you still had the e-mail. On the bright side, there appears to be a print reference to the two in this book, which would probably do the trick. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The big issue with personal experience is that it can't be verified by an outside party (and thus is in conflict with WP:V, even though it's not explicitly stated). If someone wants to look up a print citation, they just need a copy of the book/magazine, but if they want to look up whether you dropped by Steve's desk back in the early '90s, they're stuck. Like I said, though, that book reference largely confirms the account, so if that's added to the article as an inline citation, it should resolve the issue. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed response; I've been away for a while, and I just noticed the continuation of the issue. In answer to your questions:

  • The guideline on when to use citations can be found at WP:CITE#When_to_cite_sources, and on which style to use at WP:CITE#How_and_where_to_cite_sources. Many different styles are considered acceptable, and if contributors can't come to an amicable consensus, the standard reverts to the preference of the majority contributor (in this case, that'd be you). That said, more specific citations are generally better than more general ones, and I as a preference usually go with footnoted in-line citations (as described at WP:FOOT).
  • It's generally not good form to remove a "cite needed" tag that you did not add, unless it was obviously added in bad faith (i.e. added as a WP:POINT violation, or by an indef-blocked editor, or something similar). Even if you don't think that the statement in question really needs a citation, it's often best to do so in the interest of comity, and ultimately all statements are supposed to be verifiable according to WP:V anyway. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: newbie

Thought you were a newbie because TomTheHand said you were one and that I shouldn't bite the newbies with you. He thought I was doing that on the AppleSearch talk page -- expecting too much of a newbie. For me, I hadn't thought about it one way or the other until he mentioned it. But it is something I should think about as TomTheHand has made clear. Mattisse(talk) 16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimood

No I did not create the wikimood images, you have Cool Cat to thank for that. But I would be happy to help you set it up if you would like. The way I do it is to transclude a subpage - User:Maury Markowitz/Wikimood for example - anywhere I want the image to appear. Then add the text {{WM|<alignment>|User:Maury Markowitz/Wikimood|<level>}}, as well as any formatting to the subpage. Then voila! Simply update the subpage anytime you decide to change your mood. The levels go from -10 to 10, and note that a leading zero is required for single digit numbers ( 09 for example). That just about does it, let me know if you need any help. Happy editing! Prodego talk 22:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the leading zero (it should be 01) and you linked to the page instead of transcluding it on your userpage. I think that should fix it up. Prodego talk 22:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Glad I could help! On a side note, if you, Mattisse, and TomTheHand would like some unofficial mediation, I would be happy to help you out. Prodego talk 22:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well based on the look of it TomTheHand wants to make sure everything is referenced. I think using the Wikipedia:Footnotes notation would be best, which, while not mandatory, is pretty convenient. All I think he wants is a nice fact check on the article. So if you don't mind helping me find sources for everything, this will be all cleared up. Prodego talk 23:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well including references is policy (Wikipedia:Verifiability) so tagging uncited claims would be a productive change, although not as productive as citing the sources yourself. There is no way for it to be vandalism. Where did you get the information on AppleSearch? Surely you can verify it from there? Remember that "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain" (from WP:V). Prodego talk 00:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Well that isn't really vandalism per se, but as long as it were only one article it is fine. Now if I went around doing to every article you create it would be Wikistalking. You should be able to cite everything anyway (ideally). Now you said it mostly came from one source? Could you use the Wikipedia:Footnotes style and reference all you can? That way we can see what is left to be done. Prodego talk 00:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that is a separate issue, which I will deal with as well, separately. Please simply add the references. If you can't do so, remove the material can't cite sources for. Please do that before bringing up any concerns about TomTheHand's behavior. This will make things a lot easier. Prodego talk 02:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You are probably right. Thanks for refrencing what you can, and your help and cooperation. If you need anything, don't hesitate to let me know. Happy editing, and good luck. Prodego talk 12:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See message from you to me about Mattisse being so wrong

Looks like Mattisse was right after all. I have read Tom the Hand's page about you and have also noticed that he has repeatedly reverted your AppleSearch page whenever you improperly removed the citations needed tags. The result is that article is coming around and the proper citations are being added. So the net result has been good for you page, not "damaging" as you wrote to me.

Hopefully you are learning from this experience. It is a little scary to think that you have done all the editing you claim without understanding the basic requirements. NLOleson 13:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You sent me a Barnstar!

You think I'm a better editor because now I think Wikipedia is joke, I guess. TomTheHand won't even deal with you anymore. Mattisse(talk) 08:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mattisse

Mattisse has promised to follow the rules from now on; there's not really any reason to force him to keep the sockpuppet notice on his userpage. It's all there in the history if someone is interested. Thanks anyway for your concern; I appreciate it. Regards — Dan | talk 19:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SA's nukes

SA is the only country to have developed an independent nuclear weapons capacity and then renounced it (and dismantled the weapons). It's a slightly more precise definition than just giving up the weapons—a number of former Soviet bloc countries inherited nuclear weapon capabilities at the end of the Cold War and eventually gave them all to the Russian Federation, which technically counts as giving up the weapons (they could have, hypothetically, insisted on maintaining them as new nuclear states, though it would be have been diplomatically difficult). --Fastfission 17:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I wanted to say that I stumbled across Project Alpha the other day and was fascinated. I see you've worked a lot on the article, good job! --Fastfission 23:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wickelrumph

wickelrumph is kind of hard to explain without a picture. basically, it used long strips or bands of plywood that were glued together side by side. then, another layer of strips were glued on top in a different direction.

my source says it's actually strips of plywood. see Pfalz Aircraft of World War I (Great War Aircraft in Profile, Volume 4) by Jack Herris, at pages 30 and 32. that said, after looking around some more, i think it might actually be thin veneer strips. From what i understand, Deperdussin used veneer strips of tulipwood. i guess i'll change the article.
thanks. also, i thought your article on the Mercedes D.III was excellent.

thanks for the kind words, and for writing such excellent articles on the Mercedes D.III (i added a picture) and the Siemens-Schuckert D series.

[edit] Thanks for the heartening award

The article, Induced gamma emission was my first major effort on Wikipedia. Now, that I see here how many responsibilities you personally undertake, I am doubly appreciative that you took the time to do so much mentoring with me; and then to commend the result. It made a great impression on me about how much dedication exists among the Wikipedians. --Drac2000 21:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rcdsbbes.png

Hi, thanks for your kind post. I decided that I would actually like to delete it which lead to my removal from the FirstClass page. If you can delete, it would be much apreciated. If not, i was expecting that the 7-day delete policy would do it for me. Thanks. Zooobala 02:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One smart fellow:

He felt smart. Two smart fellows, they both felt smart. Three smart fellows, they all felt smart. --153.104.200.23 16:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough with the teenager single moms with out of control daughters

You're not entertaining Maury. You're just wasting everyone's time. Stop it. This is your second warning (first warning was from TV Guide). --NEMT 19:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huge lasers

Good to see someone else on here with an interest in large laserfusion facilities. I will try to help you with iamges for the LMJ article. --Deglr6328 01:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re : No concensus?

I didn't count (the mantra these days is that AfD isn't a vote), but I did notice that there are anonymous IP votes that have to be discarded. Even if we go by your tally of 9 to 22, there is still no consensus as the majority is only a mere ~60% (the usual treshold is around 70% or more). - Mailer Diablo 23:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pfalz rudder

If its all right with you, I'd like to delete the references in the Pfalz D.III article to the shape of the rudder and vertical fin. That was actually a pretty common shape in German planes. See the Roland D.XV, D.XVII, Halberstadt C.V, CL.IV, CLS.I, Pfalz D.XV, LVG CIV, C.V, C.VI, and Gotha G.I. If it was something really different, like the Hannover's biplane tail, it would certainly be worth mentioning. But the D.III, I kind of don't see it.

[edit] Mac Pro Front Row

You can't activate it, thats the thing. But its definitly installed:

System/Library/CoreServices/Front Row.

I am going to find my install disks and perform an "Upgrade Install" and make sure I install Front Row. Maybe this will make it pop up. --15:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Bot

I am not having bot problems Category:Satellite navigation(redlink) does not exist. That is the reason for the removal please feel free to create the category and repopulate it. 19:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

oops. I just assumed "high Z" would go where we both thouht it should. I'll change it. I think you are excatly right about the use of X-ray conversion in hohlraums being pretty much only used for weapons research. What you may be confused about with regard to efficiency is that while YES the efficiency of a target absorbing x-rays is better than one absorfing UV light, and one absorbing UV light is better than one absorbing infrared light, the fact remains that the INEFFICIENCY of the conversion of the UV beams to X-rays is so bad that it makes the overall process of hohlraum use not worth while if your're going for total overall efficiency. The choice for total overall efficiency is I think invariably going to be direct drive with either UV or green irradiation. --Deglr6328 20:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thank you!!

Thank you so much for your help on the llnl laser series!! I'm so pleased with the way things are developing for those articles. I thought I'd have to do it all myself when I started!! :o) --Deglr6328 20:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Optical frequency Multiplication

Second harmonic generation is not usually called optical frequency multiplication, nor is it usually done with quartz. Could you please switch the article back to its former name? Go ahead and write another article for third harmonic generation - they are quite distinct processes - using completely different setups or materials. Where did you get the impression that SHG is usually called optical frequency multiplication? Is this a term that is common in fiber optics or chemistry?--J S Lundeen 12:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for switching it back. Second harmonic generation is not always a device in and of itself but sometimes part of a larger device (e.g. SPIDER or a frequency tripler). For that reason and because it is usually called "second harmonic generation" it should probably remain under the current title. As you have likely discovered, quartz was the first material used (as the article notes), but nowadays people use specially developed crystals, such as the ones you mention in optical frequency multiplication. BTW: The SHG talk page still redirects to the OFM talk page. --J S Lundeen 15:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 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)


Hmm I think the choice of HiPER is ok. The HIPER program at GEKKO is really only an experimental configuration campaign. Its the same laser, they just reconfigured the beams to impinge on targets in a certain cone-like formation so they can do some specialized equation of state/high intensity shockwave propagation in metal stuff. Definitely no fusion capsule implosions with this thing. It actually looks like they may not even be using that config. anymore.....but I'm not sure. I wish I could visit that place to see thier setup.
"(GEKKO and Omega pre-date this realization?)." yes that's correct. --Deglr6328 04:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:HiPER baseline design.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HiPER baseline design.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teledyne Ryan M-350 UAV

You put a note on the talk page of this article in relation to deleting it...would you mind dropping the same line over at the AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teledyne Ryan M-350 UAV? Thanks! Akradecki 15:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heinkel HeS 40

hey, I just came across this article and it's looking pretty interesting, but it really needs some references. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:ICF laser power.png

Thanks for uploading Image:ICF laser power.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new memory cat?

I didn't add any new catagory. I just noticed that the "Obsolete..." catagory existed and that core memory and punch cards were in it and none of the other contempory obsolete memory technologies were. So I added the ones I knew to be obsolete (practically anything from the core memory era and earlier). -- RTC 22:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the "Obsolete..." catagory should be a subcatagory of the main one and the obsolete ones removed from the main one. -- RTC 22:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mid 1990's apple

hey maury

i noticed you contributed a lot to the "Copland" article. did you work at apple? how do you know so much about this? are there any good books about all the internal issues? i am researching this topic and any info you could lend will be helpful

thanks Copland's Robbas 02:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks maury Copland's Robbas 16:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam tag

Hello - I tagged those articles because it was a case of the blog's author (Daniel Eran) adding the links to his own blog. I've read his articles, and they seem well-researched, but they are also highly opinionated and slanted. At the very least, it shouldn't be Eran adding the links to his own blog; that violates Wikipedia's original research rule. In my humble opinion. —Cleared as filed. 21:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit to Brunel

Thanks for the revert. I was planning to edit the page then changed my mind; thought I'd cancelled out. -- Chris j wood 12:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did You Know?

Updated DYK query On 21 November 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Migma, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 06:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On November 21, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Riggatron, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

GeeJo kindly nominated this article for inclusion. Please don't feel ahy about self-nominating - 80-90% of articles are self-nommed!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XPLANE

Hi Maury, I got your note about the XPLANE article. It has been deleted by an admin. Do you know where deleted articles go? I intend to propose it for deletion review but have no idea where to find it or how to reference it.

[edit] Prod deletion

As an admin can you deleted/get someone to delete a proded page for me (it has been prodded for 7 days). Me and several other members of the WP:PW have been on a drive to route out and remove non-notable fan-cruft tag team articles in wikipedia and it would be a great help if you could get the ball rolling by removing "Snitsky and Tomko" one of the many non-helpful fan-cruft entries on wiki. Thank you --- Paulley 13:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] StarFire (navigation system)

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article StarFire (navigation system), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:StarFire (navigation system). You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. TheRingess 16:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/u/User_talk%7EMaury_Markowitz_6a32.html"