User talk:Wolfkeeper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 explanations 2 Vandalisation killing 3 Excellent work on SABRE 4 Nice Work 5 About your changes to the Semi-protection page 6 How To Copy 7 Phage therapy 8 RB545 9 Wernher von Braun 10 Diagrams and animations for special relativity 11 Lightcones and relativity 12 How do you use the expression 'co-moving' 13 Mediation Cabal 14 Merged with other articles 15 Specific impulse 16 Scramjet 17 User notice: temporary 3RR block 18 Mediation Cabal case on Elo rating system 19 Hybrid rocket 20 Atmospheric reentry 21 This Isn't Your Talk Page, It's Wikipedia's -- Play By THEIR Rules, Please 22 Wikipedia:Timed article change stabilisation mechanism 23 Clarification Requested 24 Your edit to Space elevator 25 Are the mass fraction examples of SSTO consitant / clear ? 26 Hello! 27 Dionyseus's Conduct 28 mass fraction 29 Image:Penis circum.jpg 30 Cooper-Harper? 31 Rotary rocket 32 public key caption reversion 33 Your recent edit of Pressure vessel 34 Aluminium 35 Safety 36 Net Neutrality 37 Hydra 38 Genital modification and mutilation 39 re: concord, "ships and aircraft are always feminine (her/she) in English" 40 Your baseless accusations 41 Concorde 42 Before you go quoting policy... 43 Strawman argument 44 Net Neutrality 45 Copyrights and wrongs 46 Re: Jet engine changes by User:82.33.106.83 47 Spacecraft propulsion 48 recategorization 49 Virtual particles 50 X-38 question 51 Talk:Concorde 52 hormesis 53 Aplus.Net 54 RfC on RPJ 55 Richard Feynman IQ claim 56 drag 57 Network Neutrality article 58 Network neutrality 59 Network Neutrality Biased Edits 60 Network neutrality YouTube Link 61 Re: RichardBennett new NPA violations. 62 Shock wave reversion 63 explantion 64 here another one 65 yet anotehr one 66 Figure on Busemann's Biplane 67 WP:AIV 68 Shock wave 69 Mass Drivers 70 Request for Mediation 71 Request for Mediation 72 In-Situ Resource Utilization 73 SR-71/Valkyrie 74 Mach 3.2 Shock Wave Picture 75 Image tagging for Image:SR71J58.png 76 Phobos/Deimos 77 Phobos/Deimos and ISRU 78 Alex Williams (photographer) 79 Ficticious Force 80 name? 81 G-force 82 Re: Richard Bennett/Network neutrality 83 User pages aren't talk pages. 84 about the vandalism? 85 Rocket 86 Network neutrality page - introduction 87 Are you Dan Kern? 88 radiation hormesis 89 Hi

[edit] explanations

In relationship to shock wave here is your explanation and below it you can find why it is wrong. I will continue to work and explain you your other misunderstandings. Fell free to ask questions, By the way http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/swlb.html place that you point me to isn't a place that you should look. One there are many mistakes. Two, you need equations to understand this stuff. This is not literature it is hard science.

genick --potto 04:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

To get a shockwave something has to be travelling faster than sound. In that case some parts of the air around the aircraft are travelling at exactly the speed of sound *towards* the aircraft, so that the soundwaves leaving the aircraft pile up on each other, sort of like a tailback on a road, and a shockwave forms, the pressure goes up and up and up there, and then spreads out sideways. Because of this amplification effect, a shockwave is very intense, more like an explosion when you hear it (not coincidentally, since explosions create shockwaves.)WolfKeeper 13:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I really like this clarification, so I copied it to the main page. Hope that's OK. AKAF 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is totally wrong! You have to understand that get shock wave you do not need to move above the speed of sound. In fact, any movement creates shock wave. The faster the movement the larger the shock. In every explanation of the speed of sound is originated by a very small movement. Check any compressible flow book that you like, you can use my here www.potto.org or you can use shapiro or Saad or any thermo book. No matter what book you choose the results should be the same. Now take for example piston moving with Mach number 0.1 what will be the velocity of shock ahead and according to you it will be below the speed of sound. Of course you are wrong! if you where right than

you never hear car approaching you. The shock will move in Mach=1.062 for =1.4. Think differently, if you were right than zero movement (almost zero creates sound wave) yet larger velocity creates smaller velocity. You were right it will violate the second law of thermo.

[edit] Vandalisation killing

For my proposal to greatly minimise vandalisation see: Wikipedia:TimedArticleChangeStabilisationMechanism WolfKeeper 23:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent work on SABRE

I think the article is really coming along now, it's much better than when I started it. Thanks! Maury 03:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nice Work

Hey, way to kick ass on that Leo Strauss article! TitaniumDreads 09:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About your changes to the Semi-protection page

You reverted my edit on the Semi-protection page where I referenced Wikipedia:Timed article change stabilisation mechanism. Given you didn't add a comment, didn't talk to me on it, or do anything else; this seems to be a vandalisation. It seems you are violating NPOV at best. Would you care to explain?WolfKeeper 16:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Be my guest, re-add it. -- user:zanimum

[edit] How To Copy

--- I have a problem / question which stems from the talk page on feature article 'Space Elevator'. I would like to make the following edit: state 1 state 2 state 3 ------- ------- ------- --archive 1 --archive 1 --archive 1 --archive 2 --archive 2 --archive 2 -talk 1 --archive 3 --archive 3 -talk 2 --archive 1 -talk 3 -talk 3 --archive 2 -talk 1 -talk 1 -talk 2 -talk 2 -talk 3 -talk 1 -talk 2 -talk 3

From State 2 to State 3 is just deletion but State 1 to State 2 is a COPY and i dont see any COPY in wikipedia....?? Thanx in advance if you have time for this...... uhhhhhh the above looks much worse than it looked on Sango123 talk page but maybe you can see what i want from 'space elevator' talk page. --Therealhrw 15:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phage therapy

--- Would you care to reconsider your edit? Don't you mean:- finding a suitable phage can be difficult (?). Once the right virus is found, the therapy works by delivering plenty of viruses of the right type. In other words the quantity is not the problem, its finding it. --Aspro 21:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RB545

I noticed you've edited the article, removing the mention that RB545 was a LACE or Liquid Air Cycle Engine-like engine.

It's not easy to get any info on this engine, AFAIK it's still covered by the official secrets act, but it doesn't appear to have been a turbojet, more like a ramjet with a precooler by the looks of it.

Also, I think it actually liquified the air; there's some vague references to it in the Skylon literature; something like 'Unlike earlier engines SABRE avoids liquifying the air'.WolfKeeper 19:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

I can assure you that the RB545 was not a LACE engine. I have been deliberately vague, but my description is much nearer the truth!

--Burbank 18.02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Burbank

Fair enough! I just wish I knew what I wasn't supposed to know, so I could make sure I didn't accidentally include it in the article :-) WolfKeeper 18:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Before the RB545 contract was terminated, there were unconfirmed stories that the USSR had actually built and tested a similar concept. Presumably lack of funds after the break up of the Soviet Union prevented further progress? SABRE and RB545 are very similar in cycle.:-)Burbank 16.29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wernher von Braun

"Apollo program director Sam Phillips was quoted as saying..."

Please add or indicate the source for this quotation to the article. Thanks for your contribution!
Best wishes, David Kernow 23:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diagrams and animations for special relativity

Hi Wolfkeeper,

I was reading some old talk on the special relativity Talk page. You wrote:

Also check out this awesome diagram:
http://origins.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/centre.html
It shows how two comoving objects can both be at the center of a lightcone at all times.
We need one of those... WolfKeeper 16:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You are referring to Andrew Hamilton's special relativity exposition. I have made some animations that are inspired by that expositon, for the time being they are in this sandbox article on special relativity of mine. Please check it out, and tell me whether you think they are useful.

I can also attempt to do a good remake (and upload it) of this animation from Hamilton's site, which I think is very insightful. --Cleonis | Talk 11:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think the animation really explains things like how the speed of light is constant. That with some supporting text (but without the 180 degree rotation, I think that just complicates things.) That would really work well. If people can understand how the speed of light is constant in Relativity then the battle of explaining it to people is mostly won I believe. That animation has almost everything. If it had alternate colours at regular intervals along each time axis it would even include mutual time dilation.WolfKeeper 19:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW I really like your time dilation spiral; that's really cute. That needs to go in the article. :-)WolfKeeper 19:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I gather you suggest a remake of the Andrew Hamilton animation, with just the rocking from left to right, and not the swiveling. I will see what I can do.
When I had finished the helix-animation it dawned on me that contrary to usual practice the lightcone isn't at a 45 ° angle in that animation. Generally, Minkowski diagrams are clearer when space and time are in a 1:1 ratio.
About the constancy of the speed of light. I read a wikipedia article which in effect produced the following reasoning: in 1900 Poincaré assumed that light propagates through the luminiferous ether whith a fixed velocity with respect to the stationary ether. Poincaré showed that you get planes of simultaneity then, and that velocities transform according to transformations that are nowadays called the Poincaré group (and the Lorentz group is a subgroup of the Poincaré group.) Therefore, it was argued, since Poincaré recognized the transformations first, Poincaré had actually beaten Einstein to discovering relativity. That reasoning is wrong, but it is pretty hard to show what is wrong about it.
My point is: because in the animation we are talking about ( this one ) only propagation of light is shown, it is also compatible with pre-relativistic physics; in itself the things shown there do not enforce special relativity. That is why in my own animations I never use light to illustrate relativity, but moving clocks --Cleonis | Talk 19:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lightcones and relativity

One more remark about that animation that depicts a sequence of Lorentz transformations (Lor-animation).

Here is how I understand it, and presumably how you understand it.
Einstein's second postulate can be presented as follows: Light, emitted from a single source, will propagate into space in a spherically symmetrical way. The propagation will be spherically symmetrical with respect to every inertial frame of reference.

More than that, if comoving reference frames happen to be coincident when a pulse of light is produced, then they are both going to remain at the center of the sphere, even though they are comoving. That's what this diagram shows. If you think about it, that goes a very long way to showing how SRT supports the constancy of the speed of light.WolfKeeper 23:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, Einstein wants to correlate the concept of light propagation with Newton's third law. Newton's third law, which holds good for every inertial frame of reference, states that if two objects push away from each other, then there will be conservation of momentum; the common center of mass will remain moving along a straight line (which can of course be extended to any number of tiny objects).

I'm sorry, I don't understand this.WolfKeeper 23:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Around 1905 the concept of asigning momentum to light was introduced (or was already established, I'm not sure). The principle of conservation of momentum will hold good if and only if light has the property that it propagates away spherically symmetrical with respect to every inertial frame of reference.

How does that work???WolfKeeper 23:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That is how I understand the Lor-animation. --Cleonis | Talk 21:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for joining me in introducing serious criticism to the Special relativity. Now user infinityO, a known vandal has been destroying it. RfC.80.138.193.56 00:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How do you use the expression 'co-moving'

I copy and paste from above:

More than that, if comoving reference frames happen to be coincident when a pulse of light is produced, then they are both going to remain at the center of the sphere, even though they are comoving. WolfKeeper 23:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what you refer to when you write 'co-moving'.

Oops. Yes. I meant it to mean reference frames that are moving relative to each other, exactly the opposite of what it means.

Please read that as 'non comoving' in each case.

Generally, when people use the word 'co-moving', they mean: no relative velocity between the objects involved.

I was using it incorrectly :-(

I figured that had to be the case, but I had to make sure. The crucial bit is of course that Vermillion and Cerulean are both not accelerating, not with respect to each other, and not with respect to the structure of space and time. Because neither of them is accelerating, they have in common that light propagates away from them in a spherically symmetrical way.

Maybe the reasoning can be turned all the way round: if light propagates away spherically symmetrical for both of them, shouldn't we infer from that that they are actually co-moving? :-) --Cleonis | Talk 17:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Um. No? ;-) I assume you're joking but the fact that the distance is increasing between them is a bit of a clue. WolfKeeper 18:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was joking. On the other hand, there is the impossible thought experiment of what you would see when you would be co-moving with a ray of light. For the light itself no time elapses as it propagates. For the light itself the separation between any two points in space-time is a null-interval. As seen from the perspective of the light (which is impossible) Vermillion and Cerulean are not moving with respect to each other; hence light propagates spherically symmetrical away from both of them. --Cleonis | Talk 18:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In all diagrams and animations illustrating special relativity there are objects involved that do have a velocity relative to each other. Andrew Hamilton calls his two subjects: 'Vermillion' and 'Cerulean'. Vermillion and Cerulean are not co-moving, they have a velocity relative to each other.

Then again, maybe you and I see very different things when looking at a Minkowski space-time diagram. --Cleonis | Talk 00:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal

Hi, I just wanted to alert you to the case thing that's been brought forward of which you are a part. I'd be happy to mediate a compromise, and would really like to encourage civil discussion. Please see that page and provide a response to the complaints made, if you could. Thanks! --Keitei (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What is your opinion on the introduction Zleitzen wrote? Would you agree to keep it as a compromise? --Keitei (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's good.WolfKeeper 14:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merged with other articles

See: Talk:Rocket engine nozzle

[edit] Specific impulse

Hi Wolfkeeper. I just realized an edit I made looks like the opening salvo in a revert war, but it's not, as you can see by comparing with my previous version. I hope I'm actually helping this article and not just hindering your efforts to make it more accurate. --P3d0 20:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no prob.WolfKeeper 23:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scramjet

Hi Wolfkeeper,

I made a number of edits to Scramjet lately, trying to do a bit of a cleanup of the whole article, which I wrote about in Talk:Scramjet

I'd be grateful for any input if you have time.

AKAF 07:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi Wolfkeeper,

I wrote some comments in Talk:Scramjet, which I now in part regret. I'll leave them there, but want to discuss alternatives with you, rather than get too excited about it.

The amount of text we're generating in discussion scarcely seems worth it for the small size of the article text. I wanted to propose splitting the text to a new article, and leaving a stub on the main page, much as I did for the scramjet programs section. I want to do this for several reasons:

1. The scramjet article is bordering on being too long.
2. The topic is important in itself, and impacts other supersonic airbreathing engine types exactly as much as scramjets (for example, a link from the SABRE and ramjet articles would probably be a good idea)
3. There appears to be more than enough material for a full-length article
4. There appears to be enough editorial interest

I'm not too sure what to suggest to call the article so it would appear in searches. Perhaps something like "Supersonic Airbreathing Engine Efficiency Considerations"?

AKAF

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

====Regarding reversions[1] made on April 30, 2006 (UTC) to Elo_rating_system====

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 07:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal case on Elo rating system

Hi! I've tried to help on your mediation case at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-04-27_Elo_rating_system. Please take a look. Fetofs ^Hello! 16:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you take a look on what I've proposed? Thanks. Fetofs ^Hello! 21:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wolf, do you have any reference that Hydra played with a team, besides that one? Look at my comment. If you don't agree anyway, I might take your suggestion and present it to the other party. Fetofs ^Hello! 21:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope this does it... Fetofs ^Hello! 22:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Hans Morovec was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 01:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hybrid rocket

What hybrid rockets use a solid oxidizer? Night Gyr 04:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hybrid rockets are largely experimental (famously used on SS1 of course), oxidizer rich chambers are mentioned in a paper I have read on them.WolfKeeper 04:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atmospheric reentry

Wolfkeeper,

Night Gyr just left an "accuracy dispute" marker on Atmospheric reentry. Night Gyr previously left a "Cleanup" marker on the article that you later removed. I would like to organize a coordinated response. I've also contacted Georgewilliamherbert about this. Thanks.

Egg plant 04:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Sigh...WolfKeeper 17:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this. I wonder if it would be helpful to redirect Night Gyr towards the Space exploration article? That thing is a hopeless road apple and needs a full rewrite. Night Gyr's efforts could only improve it. Egg plant 17:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Isn't Your Talk Page, It's Wikipedia's -- Play By THEIR Rules, Please

Note I'm adding new material, so this is not a violation of WP:3RR on your talk page. But you are continually removing my comments while not replying to them. This is not civil and is a violation of Wikipedia policy in and of itself, on top of your violation by allowing a copyedit modifying someone else's comments to stand. Knock it off, do what policy says, and I'd be out of here. You don't own your talk page — Wikipedia does. Your own rules don't go here — theirs do. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  12:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Go away, leave me alone.WolfKeeper 12:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I would respectfully ask you to address the issue on which I originated my comment. Since you have erased it, I will ask you again here: please reverse this change you made, which was a violation of Wikipedia's WP:TPG policy not to copyedit other people's talk page comments. Your then-continued blanking of this issue, unreplied, off your talk page was a separate issue in and of itself, but I won't choose to bring that up anywhere. Once you address this issue, I have no further cause to inquire with you on this matter. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  12:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear WCityMike, By my count you've spent 1114 words on this here. Wolfkeeper changed one letter of one word, which did not change anything about the meaning of the comment. (proove to prove). It was perhaps not an optimal use of his time, since Wolfkeeper is a valuable contributer to wikipedia, but it scarcely misrepresented anything. My advice to you is to get over it.

If not, then I'd note that it's Wolfkeeper's talk page, and that he's not bound by 3RR, but you most definitely are, and I count 5 reverts in 30 minutes. Additionally, I'd note that WikiPedians frown on stalking and harrasment far more than on minor breaches of etiquite with no actual impact. AKAF 14:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it amazing that you actually bothered to obtain a word count. Your revert count is incorrect: reversions 1, 2, 3. This was not an reversion, and this introduced a query as to why he was doing this, with this being a followup to his query. Finally, it's interesting you seem to feel Wikipedia policy can be broken at will: that "harrassment" and "stalking" (you calling me same is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in and of itself) is unacceptable, but it's perfectly fine for Wolfkeeper to repeatedly violate WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:TPG, and to blank pages, and to not be called on it, and when someone does, to start being incivil to them. That having been said, this has soured my mood incredibly, and I've sworn to myself that I'll enforce a cooldown period upon myself in matters such as this. So I'll drop the matter. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  14:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Timed article change stabilisation mechanism

Given our disagreement, I began checking out some of the other stuff you are involved in. I found this article, and thought it was actually a rather groovy idea. I hope you don't mind, but I did a little bit of spit-polishing. Now, listen, I know you're going to read this comment and think I'm a monster and I just screwed up your proposal, but the change was totally benevolent, I promise. Here's a link that compares your last edit with my most recent one. See? Nothing malicious.

My edits mostly comprise:

1. some sheer punctuation/apostrophe copyediting;
2. some replacement of awkward phrasing with Wikipedia terminology or clearer words:
   1. "vandalisation" became "vandalism";
   2. "disincentivise" became "deter";
   3. some clarification as to when "users" meant "public" and when "users" meant "editors";
   4. etc.
3. some alteration of phrasing, etc. to tighten up the concepts.

I don't believe that anywhere I actually altered the substance or meaning of what you meant, but I wanted to alert you to my edits so that if I did change the meaning, you could advise and/or edit the particularly misphrased part back to what you truly meant. I also put probably a good 10-20 minutes' worth of work into the spit polish/rephrasing/cleanup, and didn't want you to flat-out revert it just because of our conflict earlier today.

By the way, this is not meant as an "I'm sorry" gesture — I still feel exactly as I did when I stepped away from our conflict earlier today.

But here's the thing: it's a very good idea and I hope the spit polish helps in getting it to move forward a bit in higher-up circles. Let me know if I can be of any help in that, although I've got the political pull of a mudfly around here. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  17:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. I think it's a good idea tooWolfKeeper 18:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification Requested

public is wrong, logged in editors work the same as non logged in

Okay ... but editors see whatever the most recent version is, right?

Original: The edit would always be of the absolute newest version, as now. (We do not want to branch the wikipedia).

Reword: The version presented for editing to editors would always reflect the most recent edits, regardless of whether that edit was made by an immature or a mature editor. (We do not want to branch Wikipedia)

Are you thus saying that, whether you are logged in or not, the "article" tab would show the current approved version of the article, and the "edit this page" tab would show whatever the most recent edit was?

That sounds like it has the potential of introducing severe confusion for editors, considering that the "article" tab and its source in the "edit this page" tab have never been disconnected before. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  19:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought about it, but on balance I decided it was extra complexity, without very clear benefits. Also, some 'public' have accounts anyway, to store wikipedia preferences, so the concept of public is a bit fuzzy. We could consider ways of reducing any possible confusion, for example, when editing a page, if the current isn't the same as the edited version, the web server could warn of that at the top of the edit screen, similar to the current behaviour when doing a revert.

But there's also race-conditions at the moment which can cause that kind of problem anyway. If an editor brings up a page, reads it for a while, then goes to the edit tab, then it's quite possible that somebody will have edited the page since they started reading. The edit is of course of edited page, not the page that was being read...WolfKeeper 20:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Space elevator

Thanks for your edit to Space elevator, and the explanation on the talk page. You marked it as a minor edit, but I don't think it was - apart from anything else, credit where credit's due :) --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are the mass fraction examples of SSTO consitant / clear ?

Hi Wolfkeeper,

Firstly I'm completely new to Wikipedia so please excuse any misunderstanding on my part. In the article "Why SSTO?", I found the examples of mass fraction inconsistent. The original equation limit suggests that a mass fraction of 25 to 1 is 25parts fuel to 1part dead mass, but the high performance planes appear to reverse this with a ratio of 4 to 1 being explained as 1part fuel to 4parts dead mass? The airliner example is different again (but that may be because of my attempted edit :-( )

Is this incorrect, or could it be more clearly explained ?

Thanks.

--PianoTuner 14:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they're mass ratios, rather than mass fractions.

Mass ratios are the ratio of initial mass to final mass. So if there's 1 part fuel and 1 part dry mass, that's 2 to 1.WolfKeeper 15:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I started typing some of this stuff up, before having a crisis about whether its useful for a general access encyclopaedia. Anyway maybe this explanation could be useful? AKAF 07:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

Are you educated in rocket propulsion or is it just a hobby? I am very intrigued by your additions! Jay Kay 03:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dionyseus's Conduct

Hello. I've been reading through Dionyseus's contrib history, and found he was involved in a dispute with you. I myself have also clashed swords with him, and I've just recently requested the arbitration committee review his conduct. I'm trying to build the case that he's been an irresponsible editor. If you don't feel that this is the case, you may feel free to disregard this message, or if you found him accomodating, you should certainly support him in Arbcom- I'm for a fair hearing. If, however, you feel like he's not intellectually responsible in his edits, I'd really appreciate your input at [Arbitration Request]. Thanks! Danny Pi 21:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, he seems to delete material and insert POV that has no supporting evidence he can cite.WolfKeeper 21:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

DanielPi is going through my contribution history searching for people I've had arguments with, basically he's doing a little witchhunt. Our argument about the ELO rating matter was solved months ago if I recall, WolfKeeper. Dionyseus 23:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well I obviously agree with you, WolfKeeper. I'm claiming that Dionyseus is an irresponsible editor. I'm trying to find evidence outside of my case that supports the claim, establishing a pattern of bad behavior. You're welcome to offer information in support of him as well as against him. I hardly consider it a "witchhunt". Should you agree with my claim, as you seem to, I'd appreciate your statement on the arbitration request page. Thanks! Danny Pi 00:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

DanielPi you're trying to stir up trouble where there is none. Me and WolfKeeper went through mediation and the case ended peacefully. Dionyseus 00:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the mediation process has not ended, I just got bored with it, as did the mediator so far as I can tell; but it has not formally been completed. Your edits were and are not consensus, and you have added unsupported POV to the article.WolfKeeper 01:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits say that grey is white, when there are quotes saying that it is black. That is not peaceful, and not NPOV.WolfKeeper 01:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The last time I've edited the ELO Rating article was back in May 23, I'd say that was a peaceful end. Dionyseus 01:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your edits did not make consensus, but you were happy.WolfKeeper 01:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you dissatisfied with the current ELO Rating article? I see you haven't edited it since April 30. Dionyseus 01:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's adequate.WolfKeeper 13:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps more to the point: would you be willing to write a short statement on the arbitration page?Danny Pi 05:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Stir up trouble? I'm just trying to support my claims in arbitration with testimonials from people who have had conflicts with you before. I'm not asking anyone to restart arguments. If I shouldn't be doing this, provide me a rule forbidding it, and I'll gladly stop. As far as I know, this is what I ought to be doing (i.e. building a case). If you feel like you can add anything to these proceedings, Wolfkeeper, please do. I'll stop cluttering your talk page now =) Danny Pi 00:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mass fraction

Your edit to mass fraction here is confusing and inconsistent with the material that was previously there. The claim you added, "Everything else being equal, a vehicle with a higher mass fraction than another can achieve longer range or higher overall acceleration," is confusing and misleading, because it's impossible for everything else to be equal. Depending on what changes to change the mass fraction will create different end results. Further, you changed "low" to "high" with no additional explanation. Night Gyr 06:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A mass fraction is a number between 0 and 1. A mass fraction of 0.5 is 50% fuel at takeoff. If you then replace a metallic tank with a lighter composite tank the mass fraction improves. The mass fraction might then be 0.55, even with the same fuel quantity, engines, undercarriage etc. It will therefore fly further since it doesn't need to create as much lift to stay in the air and thus creates less drag. 0.55 is higher than 0.5. Ok?WolfKeeper 11:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If you replace your engines with more efficient ones, and only require 80% as much fuel to get the same delta-V, your mass fraction for a given orbit may fall.

Yeah, but Isp is limited by the propellant used- so in practice that doesn't happen. And that's also why I said everything else being equal. And raising your mass fraction isn't necessarily a win for another reason- propellant is dirt cheap; whereas dry mass is very expensive.WolfKeeper 23:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Or, if you use special materials and cut the weight of your jettisoned stages in half, you'll again cut your mass fraction. Hence, the desireability of a higher or lower number varies. Night Gyr 17:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No, if you do that, the mass fraction of both the entire vehicle and separately for each of the boosters go up.WolfKeeper 23:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Penis circum.jpg

Howdy, I noticed you created the image Image:Penis circum.jpg. Should the hoizontal axis be labeled something like "girth" or "circumfrence" rather than "length?" Or am I misreading the plot? --TeaDrinker 05:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Length around?WolfKeeper 14:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think that is clear enough. --TeaDrinker 17:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cooper-Harper?

Hi, noticed that you made a redlink to the Cooper-Harper rating on the Rotary Rocket page...are you getting ready to write an article on the scale? It's been on my To-Do list (under the "procrastinate" section, unfortunately), ever since the subject came up on RR's talk page back in June. If you aren't, I'll make it a point to get going on it, or I'd be just as happy deferring to you. Thanks! Akradecki 22:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to imminently do that, it was just a place holder; by all means have at it.WolfKeeper 22:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much...I'll let you know when I have some workable text, and would appreciate any input/additions. Akradecki 22:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Got a few minutes of spare time, so it's now up and ready for input at Cooper-Harper rating scale. Thanks!! Akradecki 03:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You should probably include the NASA diagram; as you noted, NASA pictures aren't copyright, so it should be safe to upload.WolfKeeper 03:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Done...layout okay? Akradecki 13:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you totally nailed it. That's an awesome article!WolfKeeper 17:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Akradecki 18:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rotary rocket

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

You deleted a load of categorisations of the article contents. So far as I can tell that's not a good idea; the categories need to be reasonably complete and comprehensive to be useful, and arbitrarily removing things from a category basically amounts to vandalising the category. If you want to do that kind of thing, you have to delete the entire category, or make sure that the article is already transitively in that category and by definition will remain so before removing it.WolfKeeper 05:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Category:Proposed spacecraft is the master category for Category:Single stage to orbit, and is therefore redundant and unnecessary.

No, because if and when a single stage to orbit is built, single stage to orbit will be removed from proposed spacecraft. But the Roton is still likely to be in proposed spacecraft. Right?WolfKeeper 23:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Category:Private spaceflight is the master category for Category:Commercial spaceflight,

which is the master category for Category:Space access, which is the master category for Category:Single stage to orbit. The inclusion of the latter therefore makes all three redundant and unnecessary.

You seem to be assuming that categories are hierarchical, but they aren't in general. They're more like Venn diagrams.WolfKeeper 23:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thus, by placing the article in Category:Experimental rockets, Category:Reusable launch vehicles, Category:Rotorcraft, Category:Single stage to orbit, and Category:Spaceplanes, we can ensure that the Roton is transitively in every single category that it was before I did my trimming, while significantly reducing the category clutter that existed before. The redundant categories should only be retained if the minimalist categorisation I propose here does not fully describe the Roton.

There is a reason why we only place the B-29 in Category:U.S. bomber aircraft 1940-1949, and not also in Category:Aircraft, Category:Aviation, Category:Military equipment, and Category:1940s: because the minimalist category already describes every single one of the more general categories. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's clearly hierarchical, but these space categories aren't nearly so neat. For example if a billionaire owned a suborbital runabout for his own personal use, is that commercial spaceflight? No. So perhaps private spaceflight shouldn't be a subcategory of commercial spaceflight. In fact it's clear to me that they are not subsets of each other at all, although they are related.WolfKeeper 23:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the bottom line here is you are really deleting stuff to make it look pretty, rather than being strictly accurate. I think accuracy is generally more important, YMMV.WolfKeeper 23:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] public key caption reversion

I modified the caption ot both clarify missing stuff not in the image and to stress the ide a of pairs. You reverted. Why? ww 23:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I just thought it read better before. I only did a partial revert though, of one sentence; the other changes you made seemed to be very good. Incidentally, your submission had several spelling errors, please make sure you do a spelling check in future.WolfKeeper 00:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edit of Pressure vessel

Wolfkeeper, with all due respect, I don't want to make a big thing of it but don't you think that your insertion of the words "constructed from isentropic material" into the Pressure vessel article introduces an unneccessary and extremely jargonistic word (namely, "isentropic")? Would you please consider removing your edit? - mbeychok 21:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't use isentropic, that's something else entirely.WolfKeeper 21:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me ... guess I had a brain "fart". In any event, thanks very much for removing the edit about isotropic materials. - mbeychok 21:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aluminium

Good fixes in that article. Let's keep it simple and clear.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 07:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Safety

Dear Wolfkeeper, I see you have reverted my edits on hydrogen peroxide. I must thank you for your attention in checking edits, but I will explain why I (and some with me) do think that safety does not belong in the wikipedia (and hence, why I axe those sections). Wikipedia can never put a full record of safety on compounds, it will always be a part of it. Hence, there is a risk that someone, using hydrogen peroxide (or one of the other compounds we stated) will be injured while using it. I am not sure about the legal implications of that, but I can imagine, that the person could sew (remember that Wikipedia is used by everybody all over the world) Wikipedia because there was nothing about the danger that that specific person was suffering from. We can point people to MSDS, and thereby give some info. Moreover, I do not believe that safety tell something about the compound, modes of action maybe. I have reverted the reversion. (for more information, see hydrogen sulfide and hydrazine, a.o.). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The MSDS doesn't have most of this information in it, so you are simply deleting information. Further, you are not citing any actual wikipedia rule or policy to do this deletion. Given that, this is simple vandalism.WolfKeeper 21:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I object. The first 3 paragraphs are condensed into two sentences (which state more or less what is told in the three paragraphs), and a mentioning of an MSDS. I do believe that the IARC data is in MSDS files (and well, it is a IARC-group 3). Then there is a sentence "Hydrogen peroxide is produced as a byproduct of oxygen metabolism, and virtually all organisms possess enzymes known as peroxidases, which catalyse the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide to water and oxygen (see Decomposition above)." which has nothing to do with hazards, I must confess, that data is now deleted, but it should not have been here. And the same goes for the last two paragraphs. All three are not referenced, and the latter is simply untrue, hydrogen peroxide and sulphuric acid do not make a bomb. Moreover, I'd like to keep bomb-information out of the wikipedia anyway. So yes, I can warrant the clause that you call it vandalism, and I will see if I can replace the three last parts, but still I believe, that the safety information should be kept to a minimum.

I hope I have given a bit more explanation, and I will do my best to reinstate some of the lost information. Hope to see you around! Kind regards, Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, I do believe that MSDS's do give quite complete information, companies cannot afford to give incomplete safety data. If something new is discovered, it is probably earlier in the MSDS than in online literature. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Wolfkeeper, I hope we can get to a workaround for this. The section as is now, is completely unreferenced, and does contain serious errors. I am not going to revert now, it is of no use getting into an edit war. But I still do believe that the section should be minimized, rewritten, and that data should be moved to more appropriate sections. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The question is only 'what would you expect to find in an encyclopedia?'. It doesn't seem to me you are asking that question.WolfKeeper 22:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I expect good and verifyable information. That is not what is there now. It is incomplete, it contains errors, and it is not verifyable, there are no references. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, this part looks much better already. The sentence 'Concentrated hydrogen peroxide (>50%) ... inhalation over 10%.' can also be found in an MSDS, but I will leave it. I will bring the point up in other chemical sections, or in the chemicals-portal. See if there is consensus about these things, and maybe it should be put into a policy. Thanks anyway! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Net Neutrality

I reverted your edits to Net Neutrality because you replaced the most solid definition we have - 66.7.225.34

Define 'most solid' and explain how it is that there is no references in the article for this position?WolfKeeper 01:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

- from the legislative language - with a fuzzy definition of your own. Part of the problem with this issue is the disconnect between what NN advocates say they want and what their legislation really does.66.7.225.34

Irrelevant. The top of an article is to define what something is. The legislature are irrelevant in that. I have merely moved stuff around, and added a general definition, which I have referenced.WolfKeeper 01:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I would submit that the issue isn't clarified by the substitution of personal opinion for verifiable fact.66.7.225.34

I agree. In which case you will need to find solid references. I don't particularly care where you get them from, but you need references. In the meantime: reverted.WolfKeeper 01:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

References are nice, and there are several of them to the language of the Snowe-Dorgan amendment in the article. The problem with your approach is that you assume that any definition you can reference is automatically "the definition". That's obviously absurd reasoning. The fundamental characteristic of this debate is the lack of clarity in the definition of neutrality, and you really have to accept that. This isn't ball bearings, you see.RichardBennett 19:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No, my point is not so much that there is 'a' definition. My point is more that people must have tried to define it, and we should try to quote them. Anything else is OR. Right? And it just seems like there's lots of weasel words at the moment. And I'm not clear that the definition covers the subject matter. For example it currently claims that 'Large Internet content providers maintain' that neutrality is mostly about websites prioritisation and QOS, but it kind of implies that users or network providers don't agree; whereas presumably many network users do think that that's what it's about, but don't necessarily agree that they should be prioritised, and some of the network providers think that network neutrality proposals should allow them to be able to prioritise.WolfKeeper 19:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

p.s. please sign your comments with four tilda's to insert user and date info, thx.WolfKeeper 01:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

just a note from someone else with interest in the topic saying thanks for your work on net neutrality.Ben 21:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hydra

Ah... I do apologise. It never occurred to me that the plagiarism might have been the other way round! Why would the Hydra official site need to go to Wikipedia to generate their material, anyway? Maybe they found your prose particularly inspired... SteveRwanda 17:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose so. The bit about Moore's law and ASICs is definitely mine though.WolfKeeper 17:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genital modification and mutilation

In the first place, please limit your comments about specific topics to the talk pages of thoes topics. I'd prefer it greatly if you didn't discuss topic-specific issues on my personal talk page.

That's impractical, and besides I was taking issue with *your* behaviour, and that's what these talk pages are for. If you don't like the way pages are used in the wikipedia, tough!WolfKeeper 01:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Second, your suggestion that I re-read WP:NPOV is advice you may want to take yourself. In no case is it acceptable for an editor to inject his or her personal POV into an article.

True, but...WolfKeeper 01:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a separate issue from presenting a balance of published and cited POVs within an article. If you feel so strongly about the issue at hand, I suggest you spend your time finding citable sources for the POV you are trying to protect rather than trying to engage me in a petty dispute. You say that the material I am trying to edit is non-contoversial. You need to prove this; it is not acceptable for you to just assert it and then use popups to revert my edits.Dasondas 01:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

..but we only have your assertion that they are POV in the first place, and that's *your* POV, and whilst it was not a formal citation they mention an authority in atleast one of the sentences that you deleted and I saw absolutely no evidence that you had tried to check or refute that. Given that, your edit is inappropriate.WolfKeeper 01:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I second Wolfkeeper Dosondas - you are engaged in an attempt to push your POV onto the GMM page, and you have openly asserted on it's talk page that you are going to push your pov. Furthermore your comment "intolerant fringe groups" is a personal attack Lordkazan 16:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: concord, "ships and aircraft are always feminine (her/she) in English"

This is certainly true of individual aircraft, but to refer to the whole class of Concord aircraft is rediculous.

Concorde is a bit of a weird case really. It's always singular for example. Given that it's definitely feminine in the singular, and given that Concorde is always singular, then the class of Concorde must be feminine also.WolfKeeper 13:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your baseless accusations

I have not violated 3RR. I have not removed a citation. Your edits are in violation of NPOV, OR, and CIV. Whether or not you intend it to be so, your edits are religiously intolerant and bigoted. The world will not stop if you leave it alone.Dasondas 03:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC) A small correction; I did remove a cite, however it is not a relevant cite as it does not specifically address the so-called controversial nature of religious circumcision.Dasondas 03:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The article you cited is clearly trying to make that inference, but I do not see any evidence of a real controversy surrounding the practice of religious circumcision.Dasondas 03:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So we can leave the article as it stands, it's not making any direct attacks on religious circumcision? It links to a balanced BBC article that mainly talks about non religious, non medical circumcision, and that notes that relgious circumcision is perfectly legal in the UK and elsewhere. I consider this to be NPOV, or as near as we're ever going to get.WolfKeeper 16:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concorde

Re: partial rv: AHEM!!! (I took a lot of effort to find that info)

Ooops. I must have accidentally editied a version behind the current. I didn't mean to take out your citation, sorry about that! --BadWolf42 09:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Before you go quoting policy...

Perhaps you should take a minute and READ THEM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

These are Wikipedia list of policies and the definition of "vandalism" No where is listed that an article about a british plane is required to be written in british english, nor does it say anything about a british article must be written in british english, no does it say an article about something french should be written in french. Aspensti 16:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit breaches Wikipedia:Civility "Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and prevents Wikipedia from working properly." Most British people find your edits rude, insensitive and petty. And you are certainly unable to point to a policy that said that everything should be changed to American spelling.WolfKeeper 17:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Your missing the point here, friend.

You're not my friend, and you're making bad-faith edits to the Concorde article.

Originally in the article was a request to "leave british english in an article about a british plane". However, I felt there was no need for such a request.

Yeah. And? Am I supposed to be impressed?WolfKeeper 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As I have provided for you, there is no policy stating that such a request is valid, so I corrected the article.

As a matter of fact, there is, and I knew I had read it. Further the arbcom takes a dim view of people arbitrarily changing spelling, particularly in national related articles.WolfKeeper 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You called it vandalism, which I also showed you it was not.

It's simple vandalism.WolfKeeper 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets say no one is going to win the battle on wheather it should be british or american english in this article. I can agree to disagree, but there is NO reason at all for a warning to be hidden in the article stating that changing said wording violates policy as it clearly does not. I have gone ahead and left the british wording in the article per your request as to not be "rude". I have also removed the incorrect wording about policy. Aspensti 19:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's just say you have thoroughly lost the battle over this article; and I have reverted your moronic edits for the last time. Now are you going to continue your policy of vandalisms so I can get you a suspension? Please?WolfKeeper 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, you were wrong to call it vandalism; it is only arguably vandalism if you neglect WP:AGF, which I know is sometimes hard. But it is in breach of a policy I already showed you, Aspensti, so you were wrong too. As I already said, Aspensti, please stop editing this article to U.S. English. Wolfkeeper got that right. It is obviously an article about a British topic, so quite correctly takes the British spelling. (copied to both talk pages) --Guinnog 00:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If he was editing from malice, then it constitutes vandalism. I consider it self evident that that was the case. His edit was nationally chauvinistic, and he even deleted text asking him specifically not to do that, which he had obviously read, otherwise he wouldn't have deleted it. And his edits weren't any kind of consensus; in fact he showed that he didn't give a damn about consensus. And he did this multiple times, not just once. It's vandalism. It was an attack on the article. This is considered a quintessentially British plane. It would be like me going to the Pentagon article and changing all the spelling to British English; there's no way that's what he did is not vandalism.WolfKeeper 00:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You've got a point Wolfkeeper; you may be right. Let's just consider that we've educated this editor about an important policy, and move on. I'll certainly help you to revert any further edits like the one Aspesti made. I also watch and have edited Air France Flight 4590, and inserted the in-line comments about spelling. I know how frustrating it can be when people change it arbitrarily. Let's just leave it at that, unless it happens again. --Guinnog 01:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strawman argument

Hi. Recently on Talk:Specific impulse, you edited a comment of mine in a way that made it appear rather foolish in the context of your response. My comment started like this:

To your first point: I don't agree that there's a difference, but even if there were, these minutae don't enhance the article, and only serve to make it more verbose. If you can give an example of an incorrect conclusion someone might draw from the claim that N•s/kg is a speed, then I'd agree that we should make a distinction. To your second point ...

You broke it off after the first sentence, inserted my signature, and replied like this:

To your first point: I don't agree that there's a difference, but even if there were, these minutae don't enhance the article, and only serve to make it more verbose. --P3d0 20:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother to be accurate??? No that doesn't work.WolfKeeper 20:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I can imagine it was convenient to remove my request for an example, but you ended up responding to a point I never actually made. You may want to consider refraining from editing other people's comments when replying to them. --P3d0 16:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not remove your request for an example; it's still there, and I answered it in general terms. If you actually want an example of how ridiculous it gets, just consider the rocket equation in the form that uses the effective exhaust velocity. If you use specific impulse instead of effective exhaust velocity (which is claimed to be the same thing) you get a delta-v measured in N.s/kg... which whilst technically accurate is likely to confuse the heck out of people; particularly people who are likely to read the article to find out what's going on.WolfKeeper 17:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to discuss Specific Impulse issues here. I just want to say that, yes, you did not delete my request; sorry if I implied that. --P3d0 17:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Net Neutrality

User:RichardBennett is up to his old antics again, nuking the article intro entirely in a revert-warring bit of spite, making no attempt to compromise. --Calton | Talk 11:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to add cites that this really is the meaning of the term; and I'm not convinced that everyone defines it the way the article currently states, so that makes it POV. POV is not wrong in the wikipedia, NPOV might really better stand for Notable Points Of View, but the current definition excludes other interpretations and needs to be enlarged.WolfKeeper 15:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrights and wrongs

Hi Wolfkeeper,

I noticed a couple of comments on copyright that you made on Talk:ThrustSSC. To be honest, I think copyright is rather more complicated than that. For example copyright law varies quite a bit from one country to another - e.g. in many countries, including the US, copyright lasts from 70 years following death of the author. Also, an image is not automatically copyright of the photographer. If the photographer is commissioned to take some photographs, the images may be copyright of the commissioning body. When you get into the realms of derivative works, trademarks, copyright exceptions, unknown authors not to mention non-copyright issues such as privacy laws and trespass, it can really get quite complicated.

See the Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ for more guidelines and I particularly recommend the two short external guides linked in the 'Other considerations for photographers' section. -- Solipsist 10:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but the chances of him finding a picture between 50 and 70 years older than the date of death of the photographer is pretty miniscule, probably 99.9999% on the web are wayyyy less than even 50. And to a first approximation you can assume that when works are commissioned that comes under licensing (it's not quite true legally, but it's near enough for people with no clue what they're doing.)WolfKeeper 14:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Jet engine changes by User:82.33.106.83

Wolfkeeper wrote:

You reverted some changes to the Jet engine article and added a warning on the users talk page.

I looked over the changes, they didn't seem to me to be obvious vandalism, although I may have missed it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jet_engine&diff=78129862&oldid=78117848

I was planning to undo the revert and remove the warning on this anonymous users page, but I thought I should check with you first. Is there some specific concern here?WolfKeeper 17:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing this out. My apologies for not looking more closely, as this certainly wasn't vandalism. I saw this edit in Recent Changes and since it seemed to be the removal of a section with no explaination, I assumed it was vandalism and used rollback. Of course that then reverted the rest of the user's work on the article; had I looked at these contributions I would have seen that the removal of the section was justified, since the material had been added elsewhere and the user was merely re-arranging things. I have reinstated the user's changes and left an explanation on their talk page – Gurch 18:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spacecraft propulsion

Spacecraft propulsion is up for a featured article review, and I noticed your name often in the edit history. Detailed concerns about the article may be found here. Please leave your comments if you're able to help us maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 03:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if you're still watching the discussion, so I thought I'd mention that I responded to one of your points there. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recategorization

there has been a merge tag on the Category:Space exploration and Category:Spaceflight for quite some time.. rather than calling my edits vandalism, you could have taken up the issue on the talk pages first. see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Mlm42 17:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual particles

JRSprings is right. We all know that quantum field theory accurately describes nature, and includes virtual particles, but it's true that we can't detect individual virtual particles. A virtual particle is defined to be a particle internal to an interaction;

That's simply incorrect. The definition is that a virtual particle is a particle that violates conservation of momentum, charge, energy etc. for a period of time in accordance with the uncertainty principle. As a matter of fact it can be the only particle involved in an interaction.WolfKeeper 15:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

if you detected it, it would no longer fit the definition. We can track down a source for this easily enough, if you like,

Please do so.WolfKeeper 15:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

but I assure you I am not misremembering my recent coursework in quantum field theory. -- SCZenz 07:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No. That wasn't what the piece said. It said we couldn't detect them at all. And that's what I violently objected to. I'm reasonably sure that not being able to detect single virtual particle interactions is not characteristic of virtual particles; but it may well be characteristic of current experimental technology.WolfKeeper 15:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The current phraseology is fine though.WolfKeeper 15:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Although to be honest, even the current phraseology is pretty weasely; and I'm not entirely sure it's true in any normal sense of the word. Don't forget it's thought that electrostatics is mediated by virtual photons; you can't get much more easily measured than that.WolfKeeper 15:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Your violent objection is unfounded. Nobody claimed the effects of virtual particles can't be observed. But in an interaction like e ⁺ e ⁻ oγ ^* oe ⁺ e ⁻ you can't see the virtual particle itself without changing the interaction entirely (becaues you need a new interaction to "see" anything). What you really see is the scattering, which is mediated by more than one possible Feynmann diagram anyway as you go beyond first order in perturbation theory—thus it's a philisophical question which if any virtual particles "actually exist," and science doesn't set out to answer such questions.

You might be interested to know that there is current research in calculating QCD vertices without making use of virtual particles. [2] It works for certain very specific diagrams. If there's a way to calculate an interaction without virtual particles and get the same answer as with those particles, then there's no sense in which detecting the interaction tells you you've detected a virtual particle.

If you want to debate this further, can I ask what level of knowledge you have on this subject? I don't want to waste my time or yours on explaining things you already know; if we already know the same physics and it's just a question of philosophy then I'll approach further discussion differently. -- SCZenz 04:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the reference you wanted:

Peskin, Michael E.; Daniel V. Schroeder (1995). "Invitation: Pair Production in e⁺e^- Annihilation", Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Westview Press, 5. ISBN 0-201-50397-2. “Feynman has invented a beautiful way to organize and visualize the perturabtion series: the method of Feynman diagrams. . . . For our particular calculation [e⁺e^- → μ⁺μ^-], the lowest-order term in the perturbation series can be repressented by a single diagram. . . . The diagram is made up of three types of components: external lines (representing the four incoming and outgoing particles), internal lines (representing "virtual" particles, in this case one virtual photon), and vertices.” 

This as close as a textbook on QFT comes to defining virtual particles—an abstraction for the internal details of terms in the perturbation theories. -- SCZenz 16:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X-38 question

Hi Wolf...I could use your expert input in an issue over at Talk:X-38 Crew Return Vehicle. Once upon a time, there were two articles, one on the X-38, one on the CRV. A merge was proposed, and I agreed to do it, a decision which I now regret, as it led to a fair amount of contention, especially from one editor. There's now a discussion to unmerge them (under the heading of "Wrong Decision"). Before I agree to do the unmerge, I want a clear consensus of editors who have the background to know what they're talking about. You seem to be one such editor...if you have time, would you mind reviewing the situation and giving input? Thanks! Akradecki 16:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The structural problem is that without the X-38 the most logical layout would push you towards having everything it their own articles but there probably isn't that much to talk about in a separate CRV article.WolfKeeper 17:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should be at CRV (adding some general summary at the top about CRVs in general) and put the X-38 in a subsection of CRV, pointing out that it is a prototype only. You'd need redirects from X-38 to CRV of course.WolfKeeper 17:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If the article really does get too big, then you can always split later.WolfKeeper 17:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Concorde

"It's easy. Learn English, rather than some mongrel 'American' masquerading as English. :p WolfKeeper 17:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)" While I sympathise with your frustration, and agree with you on the usage issue, please try and be more civil than this. --Guinnog 17:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hormesis

Hi, you posted in a comment on Talk:Hormesis, you wrote, "Somebody seems to have 'accidentally' deleted radiation hormesis. I have undeleted it, and removed the 'merge' tag. If you wish to delete a page you must put it up for deletion. Thanks for not abusing process." I was simply following the wikipedia guide for merging. When I read the hormesis page, I was shocked to see that it was either redundant or frankly junk. If you don't agree with the way I merged the two but agree that they should be merged, please add in the relevant material and undo your rvs. otherwise, we can continue to discuss the merits of having both articles on the hormesis talk page. Cheers, Pdbailey 19:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aplus.Net

Thanks for the heads-up. I can't believe this guy. :) --Aguerriero (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted. Worse than the last time, deletion of which I proposed. Ohconfucius 04:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Done some more digging, I found this complaint. Not as serious as the google bombing, but interesting nevertheless. It reveals several other related outfits, including one called Cedant, in which another Vachovsky (Lilian) is principal. I suppose you must already know that Ted V is the marketing Director. Ohconfucius 14:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The article had been saved, and one sentence articles are far from unknown. Can I suggest you use a word processor and copy longer pieces of text before saving, rather than writing article one sentence at a time. Please also refrain from using descriptions like vandalism for a legitimate, if now contested edit. It costs nothing to be polite. jimfbleak 08:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect may I suggest that there is no policy saying that I should do that, and I should point out also costs nothing to hit the link key to see that it was already dead linked from 4 separate places, or the history key which showed an ongoing pattern of editing.WolfKeeper 08:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on RPJ

Hi. I'm advocating a case on behalf of a user who is experiencing numerous problems with RPJ. I can see from RPJ's talk page that you have interacted with him in the past. If you have a moment, would you be so kind as to head over to the RfC page and leave any guidance that might help in resolving this dispute. Thanks so much, and have a great day! →Bobby← 15:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Feynman IQ claim

Hi, I was trying to find a source for the claim that Feynman's IQ was 124, and I see that you were the one who originally put this claim in the article. This claim seems to be repeated on many websites, but I can't find any that cite a source, and I'm wondering if it might just be one of those internet rumors...do you know of a published source? Hypnosifl 05:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It was in 'Genius' by Gleick see: [3] WolfKeeper 05:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] drag

Thanks for your explanation. FWIW, staging in the atmosphere has a huge effect on drag -- it's just not what Wolfkeeper thinks staging is for. FWIW the vast majoriy of rockets do not reach space. The notion that stages 'collide' is risible, to one familiar with physics. One such incident would be interesting to hear about. I don't mean a staging failure, I mean a 'collision.'

If you have a reference to a rocket vehicle that stages within the atmosphere (n.b. I don't think airlaunch really counts), by all means add it to the article.

No I won't.

I don't know of any, and the SR-71 program had issues with staging a ramjet vehicle at mach 3 (as in a collision, as in somebody died); similar sorts of things can happen with rockets.WolfKeeper 07:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Parallel staging:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmlgN4DRk2Y

Sequential:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXygFVxfjS4

And as you can see, no effect on drag.

Now simply redefine 'rocket' to 'real rocket' and you're golden. Brainhell 00:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

+ I removed your edit, FWIW staging doesn't usually reduce aerodynamic drag; it's not the purpose of it at all. In practice rockets rarely stage until they're outside the atmosphere anyway, otherwise there's a severe risk that the stages will collide due to aerodynamic forces during separation.WolfKeeper 01:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Network Neutrality article

[edit] Network neutrality

You removed referenced material from the wikipedia, on the grounds that apparently nobody had bothered to go through 192 countries and list the violations of network neutrality in each one, and list them for each country. That's a ridiculous position for you to take.

In addition you marked the edit as minor, when it clearly wasn't. That's a bad mistake. Not happy.WolfKeeper 01:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed a poorly written paragraph that did not support the only assertion it made- the frequency of "network neutrality violations for political or moral reasons". The paragraph asserted that such violations are "not uncommon". Two examples of that assertion, which constituted vaguely worded mentions of 'Net access censorship in Saudi Arabia and China, were provided along with an external link. The external link provided to supposedly reference the assertion made in the paragraph in question did nothing but reiterate the same things- the matter of 'Net censorship in Saudi Arabia and China without any supporting data provided in its own right.[4] The magazine article's author mentions a few tidbits like "Because Google is routinely blocked by the Chinese firewall, for example, it has created a truncated index called Google.cn for its Chinese customers." None of this establishes that "network neutrality violations for political or moral reasons" are "not uncommon". It only establishes a small amount of proof of two examples out of 194 nation-states. An external link to a page or website that deals specifically with 'Net censorship around the world would be what is needed. This site is a good example of such. Studies for particular nation-states are also readily available.

I am reasonably certain that China and Saudi Arabia do actively censor the 'Net access provided to their citizens. Whomever wrote the paragraph in question wanted to say something that is, indeed, useful the article in question, but apparently had little experience with citing anything since the citation provided did not, in fact, provide independent corroboration beyond a magazine article writer's opinions and uncited mentions of one or two examples.

In short, you are incorrect in your assertions here regarding my actions. Nor do I have a desire for the list that you seem to think I wanted. I simply ask that things be cited properly and are written based on either commonly understood and/or citable facts and reasonable conclusions.

In my judgement, it was minor. This judgement is based on the quality of the paragraph in question. I am sorry that you disagree with my opinion on the matter.

As a gesture of good will, I have edited the article in question to reflect the things I have said here.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 03:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Many thanks. I'm sure there's a lot more network non neutralities out there, I'm fairly sure that Germany blocks Neo-Nazi websites and such like. Singapore is another one IRC. Network neutrality is a principle, and I think most people would agree that in some situations it could be taken too far.WolfKeeper 04:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Network Neutrality Biased Edits

Either you're completely ignorant of the subject or you're a paid shill of Google or some other combatant. Please refrain from injecting your personal feelings into the article and refrain from deleting contributions by knowledgeable people.

Either or huh? Looks like a 3rd personal attack right there.WolfKeeper 04:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Network neutrality YouTube Link

The TBL excerpt is on youtube video, which appears to be cut from the savetheinternet video. They wouldn't care at all.

I claim this is fair use, and we are simply linking to a report on what TBL has said.

I would imagine we would also have immense protection from Google itself- it's in their business interests to ensure that that video stay up on the web.

It's so ridiculously unlikely that the wikipedia could get into any trouble over this link.WolfKeeper 20:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes but please see WP:C that states that we must not link copyvios. I thought long and hard about this deletion but there is no fair use for videos. --Spartaz 20:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The operative words there are probably and perhaps we can get a license. Look I'm not going to fight you but C is pretty clear and its policy that we are expected to follow.

This is marginal and I won't revert you back if you choose to restore the link. I'm sure you understand the subject area better than me. All I ask is that if you do revert you review C first and post a note on the talk page explaining why you feel the link is valid. That's not for me but in case another editor contributing disagrees with the decision.

?OK --Spartaz 22:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it anyway. It was a huge PITA, I eventually found TBLs blog entry (probably no other blog would have done) and he linked to a video on MIT.edu site which has a license saying you can definitely link, so it's all golden.WolfKeeper 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. That's a much much better solution. Nice work there. Sorry for the PITA but this should ensure that the link to the vid is stable in case of any future reviews of YT links. Spartaz 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: RichardBennett new NPA violations.

Given him his one and only warning. Will check his contribs, periodically, but feel free to let me know if I miss anything. Luna Santin 06:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You have new messages at WP:AIV. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

.

[edit] Shock wave reversion

Hi Wolfkeeper. I've just reverted Gennick's changes to shock wave. It's mainly because I think his edits are in too poor English to be understood. I'd like it if a cool head would have a look at the page though.

Thanks, AKAF 12:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] explantion

In relationship to shock wave here is your explanation and below it you can find why it is wrong. I will continue to work and explain you your other misunderstandings. Fell free to ask questions, By the way http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/swlb.html place that you point me to isn't a place that you should look. One there are many mistakes. Two, you need equations to understand this stuff. This is not literature it is hard science.

genick --potto 04:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

To get a shockwave something has to be travelling faster than sound. In that case some parts of the air around the aircraft are travelling at exactly the speed of sound *towards* the aircraft, so that the soundwaves leaving the aircraft pile up on each other, sort of like a tailback on a road, and a shockwave forms, the pressure goes up and up and up there, and then spreads out sideways. Because of this amplification effect, a shockwave is very intense, more like an explosion when you hear it (not coincidentally, since explosions create shockwaves.)WolfKeeper 13:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I really like this clarification, so I copied it to the main page. Hope that's OK. AKAF 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is totally wrong! You have to understand that get shock wave you do not need to move above the speed of sound. In fact, any movement creates shock wave. The faster the movement the larger the shock. In every explanation of the speed of sound is originated by a very small movement. Check any compressible flow book that you like, you can use my here www.potto.org or you can use shapiro or Saad or any thermo book. No matter what book you choose the results should be the same. Now take for example piston moving with Mach number 0.1 what will be the velocity of shock ahead and according to you it will be below the speed of sound. Of course you are wrong! if you where right than

you never hear car approaching you. The shock will move in Mach=1.062 for =1.4. Think differently, if you were right than zero movement (almost zero creates sound wave) yet larger velocity creates smaller velocity. You were right it will violate the second law of thermo. --potto 04:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC) genick

[edit] here another one

The text said it propogates through a medium, this implies that they are referring to the mediums reference frame.WolfKeeper 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me take your explantion one step further. we have a disturbance propogates due to unknown reason for unknown reason in the speed of incoming (upstream) gas. Thus, if you increase the gas velocity then your disturbance will increase the speed. Conclusion from this, that gas is the source of this disturbance. So, why the disturbance is moving in the opposite direction? If the gas is the source of your disturbance than if you cut the nozzle it should not effect the disturbance, yet it will.

I don't agree with what you have written here in any way, shape or form. That's not 'taking my explanation a step further'.WolfKeeper 03:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I do what I am good at. I think that you should do what you are good at. Shock wave is not a disturbance and it doesn't propogates it sometime stationary.

genick --potto 04:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That depends on the frame of reference. All inertial frames of reference are equivalent under special relativity. I have no problem with choosing a frame of reference from which a shockwave isn't travelling, but you seem to have big problems with one where it is. That concerns me slightly, since it means you haven't entirely thought it through.WolfKeeper 03:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And with all due respect, while you may very well be an expert at shockwaves, you're not an expert at explaining it in English. I think... I understand what you're saying, but you seem to use the words 'totally wrong' in a different sense, perhaps you might like to try replacing it with the phrase 'not completely right'; which I would be more likely to agree to. Trust me, it's usually a good idea to get people to agree with you in the wikipedia.WolfKeeper 03:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] yet anotehr one

I don't see how that could be true in the general case. For example a shockwave forms around a nuclear bomb that very definitely does propogate for a distance at least, and I don't see how that would not be carrying energy away. I'm wondering if the solution is that shockwaves can carry kinetic energy, in the case of a nozzle the shockwave is stationary in the lab frame, so that would explain your example. Also see: [5] which very definitely says that shock waves can carry energy.WolfKeeper 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Again you are confusing issues. I wish that you once pick in a good book, check my book or Shapiro. There are moving shocks and there are stationary shocks. In the case of stationary shock, there is no energy change. In the case of moving shocks there is a difference between energy in different frame of reference. This is the source of your confusion. Perhes, you should write about this topic after you took a class in gas dynamics.

--potto 04:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC) genick

[edit] Figure on Busemann's Biplane

The present figure for Busemann's Biplane article can be misleading. I was trying to show that even under "perfect" design operation, the biplane will produce wave drag. Displaying the present figure and the statement that the biplane produces no wave drag is contradictory. Because under the assumption that there are no viscous effect, there is no way to explain how come the vehicle is experiencing a drag. -Myth (Talk) 02:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But isn't there a big difference between wave drag and drag? Busemann's biplane very definitely has drag, but it doesn't have wave drag. There are still viscous effects.WolfKeeper 03:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

True that there is a difference between drag (by which I presume you meant form drag and/or skin friction drag) and wave drag, but in the present case even if we neglect the viscous effect, there will be a drag on the body. Other types of drag (like interference drag, induced drag and ram drag) do not play any role here. So the problem is if it is not wave drag then what kind of drag it is? (Definition of different types of drag) -Myth (Talk) 03:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant drag as in the sum of all the different forms of drag. But in this case you will get form drag- as your graph shows the force at the front of the body is larger than at the rear- and this gives form drag.WolfKeeper 03:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You get shockwaves where something goes faster than the speed of sound (roughly), in the case of Busemann's biplane none of the air leaves the rear of the biplane going faster than sound since the expansion fans slows it all down. However some of the air will still end up going forwards subsonically, and this inevitably causes form drag on the biplane.WolfKeeper 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely the same confusion that I had before. One may observe that in present case the drag that we are observing on the body is not form drag. Form drag is caused due to the separation of the flow (ref. Anderson J. D., Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, 3rd Ed. pp 65). If we neglect viscous effect, there can be no form drag theoretically (refer d'Alembert's paradox). And for most supersonic flow, we can neglect the effect of viscosity (rough analysis). So I guess it would be incorrect to term the drag we observe as form drag.

I would suppose that the reason you can ignore viscosity is because the wave drag is usually much bigger. If the wave drag has cancelled as here, then you're left with, at minimum, viscous drag. And there's still going to be a boundary layer between the stationary sides and the supersonic flow where that acts.WolfKeeper 05:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct. We neglect viscous effect because they are usually much smaller than other pressure forces and the momentum of the fluid elements. As a result we do not have to deal with the viscous terms in the flow equations. This is still valid here. Since the flow is supersonic (i.e. high velocity & momentum) we can still neglect the viscous terms. We do not neglect the viscous terms because wave drag is high or low compared to viscous drag. In fact, a flat plate at zero angle of attack in a supersonic inviscid flow will produce zero drag. If we consider that to be zero, then the biplane configuration will have some finite drag even if the viscous effects are neglected. If we do consider the viscous effects, the drag will be even more higher and will have contribution from form drag, skin friction drag and wave drag. -Myth (Talk) 15:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because there is difference between the pressure force between the front and rear of a body, we cannot say it is form drag, because all drag (except skin friction drag) is due to the pressure force imbalance. If we define the form drag as pressure force imbalance then even a diamond shaped airfoil at zero angle of attack in supersonic flow will have only form drag and no wave drag.

Secondly the flow never turns subsonic. The reason being, behind an oblique shock the flow is still supersonic (except for some special cases, which we do not have to worry about). Now when the flow goes through an expansion fan, it accelerates (velocity increases) and temperature falls. Net effect is increase in the Mach number. That's why across an expansion fan M₂ > M₁. A supersonic flow can be slowed down by compression waves (like shock waves). -Myth (Talk) 05:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, check out: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004solic/flat.ppt it's a Busemann biplane used for munitions. Lots of pretty Schlieren photographs and stuff. We're probably going to want to reference this, and update the article to match.WolfKeeper 16:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the presentation, it is not tailored to the topic. but I guess at present it is a good reference to show the application of the concept. -Myth (Talk) 22:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV

Thank you for your recent posting of an anonymous editor to Administrators intervention against vandalism. In the future though, when reporting IP addressed to WP:AIV, please make sure that they have had a final warning in the recent past. Due to the nature of IP addresses, spans of time between edits may indicate different users. Being it is possible that the currently vandalizing user did not get a true final warning they are often not be blocked. To remedy this, please make an effort to ensure that all vandals reported to WP:AIV have an appropriate, and recent, final warning. The most common final warnings are {{test4}} or {{bv}}. If you have any questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to ask me on my user talk page. Thanks again!-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The case you described is exactly how it is with registered (or named users). With anon users, the case is very dfferent. Many IP addresses are dynamic, Today it could be mine, tommorow yours, and the day after that joe blows. In the case that it is a school or something like that, many people may share the same ip. So, editor_a makes an edit yesterday in bad faith. today, editor_b (a different person but under the same ip address because of network settings) makes a good faith test and gets blocked because of editor-a's warning yesterday. There are many admins who will not block an anon without a recent final wrning (at least within the past 24 hours). Hope this helps! If there is anytnhing else I can do to explain it better, please let me know! Thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shock wave

Hi Wolfkeeper, the discussion on shock wave has calmed down somewhat. Please don't be frightened off! Regards AKAF 10:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mass Drivers

Woflkeeper, you have a strange defintion of a rocket. Mass drivers belong in the same category as electric propulsion, including ion propulsion and plasma. You should remove those also.

No, they're reaction drives. Rocket engines have a rocket, and produce a jet of fluid. Mass drivers very typically produce discrete pulses of solid matter. I've got nothing against them. We need to draw the line somewhere a rocket begins. For example a Bussard Ramjet is a interstellar *ramjet*, and hence is not a rocket etc. etc.WolfKeeper 19:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, you have a strange defintion of a rocket. Mass drivers belong in the same category as electric propulsion, including ion propulsion and plasma. You should remove those also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cfrjlr (talk • contribs) 18:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I was thinking about it. Ion drives don't exactly have a nozzle. I only added VASIMR because it had a clear cut magnetic nozzle, and a throat (the R on the end is for Rocket!) and a working fluid, Ion drives really don't have a throat or a nozzle, and are normally described as reaction drives.WolfKeeper 19:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Network neutrality. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Network Neutrality. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

It is correct that I am employed by Schaeffler, although its not fair completely deleting the article. There was nothing previously on Wikipedia on the company, and we felt that users would benefit by having the information available to them. My apologies on the business speak. I will try to make sure that it is kept to a minimum in the future

[edit] In-Situ Resource Utilization

Hi, nice contribution - do you have a reference for the Phobos and Deimos proposed missions (particularly the delta v bit)? regards sbandrews 11:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for a really good reference; I've found well over 200 hits when I search for it, at least half are at least vaguely talking about it, but some of the better documents there seem to be aren't publically available, they are subscription only.WolfKeeper 19:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

On the delta-v front if you look at delta-v budget you can add up the delta-vs to LEO yourself and compare it with the moon, you will find that they are almost exactly the same, phobos is marginally lower (incidentally the other *big* advantage of phobos is the extremely low escape velocity, so the rocket thrust and Isp you need to escape from it is unbelievably tiny (as in, a normal firework would literally have escape velocity.)WolfKeeper 19:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

ty, & thx also for the Gerard O'Neill link you put in, just what I was looking for! sbandrews 22:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SR-71/Valkyrie

About the inlets: I'm fairly sure it was from a book on jet engines: [6] For the XB-70: [7] I'm thinking of asking about the L-D ratio on Aerospaceweb, just to confirm.

I think the SR-71 swallows its shock at Mach 3.2; or at least one of the pilots claim that. I've put a question out on sci.planes.military and we'll see what pops out. It looks like it doesn't do it at low speeds though due to the cone positioning.WolfKeeper 02:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mach 3.2 Shock Wave Picture

Wolfkeeper, I have emailed a friend, a retired Lockheed man ( who was part of the Blackbird program for many years ) to see if he might be able to get us a Lockheed diagram or wind tunnel picture of the mach 3.2 shock wave capture we have been discussing. I'll let you know what he tells me and pass on to you any data he finds for me.

David Dempster 05:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, cool, many thanks.WolfKeeper 05:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I put a message out on Usenet, there's a contributor called Mary Shafer, if she doesn't know this nobody does. :-) She's an aerodynamicist that worked on SR-71s at NASA as well as working on the Space Shuttle. She's one of the few people to actually see an SR-71 at Mach 3.2. IRC she also worked on ways to deal with combustion instabilities in the SR-71s engines.WolfKeeper 05:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Matter of interest, when you restarted the inlet you moved the spikes forward, did that immediately restart it or did you have to then bring it backwards again to trigger the restart?WolfKeeper 05:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The latter. By moving both spikes forward, both inlets were then unstarted which stopped the yawing forces. The pilot had to immediately reposition the spike control switches to allow them to again retract and bring the captured shock wave back up to the inlet lip. Eventually, this process was automated and with the digital inlet computer ( which arrived after I left the program in 1969 ) restarts were fast and smooth. Some of the Habu's I have talked with that flew in the last years of the program never felt an unstart or "head banger" like we had in the beginning days.

David Dempster 19:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:SR71J58.png

Thanks for uploading Image:SR71J58.png. 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. 09:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phobos/Deimos

[edit] Phobos/Deimos and ISRU

Thanks for not removing my edits.

As a matter of fact, a Russian probe detecting evidence of water vapour around Phobos.

However the article never actually said that Phobos had water, it said it could have water or ice.

In any case arbitrarily deleting statements (including perfectly true statements about the necessity of ISRU for colonisation- (hint: colonisation means living there permanently) is not the way that things are done in the wikipedia. The normal process is you insert '{ { fact } }' statements where appropriate giving other editors a chance to back up what they have written.

Removal of statements in the way you did is unacceptable except in cases of vandalism (which are rare with well established editors.WolfKeeper 00:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not intend to accuse anyone. I was simply removing incorrect information, and did say that a proper version could be put in its place (I was planning on doing so, but ran out of time). I am perhaps overly sensitive when it comes to Phobos and water. The story: Phobos-2 (the Russian mission) did not detect water at a meaningful significance level. My collaborators and I used the Arecibo radar to observe both Phobos and Deimos (see [8]. They cannot have any water within several meters of the surface. Spectra show that they do not either, and that they have likely been completely dehydrated. Deep radar from MARSIS on Mars Express confirms. So I apologize if I gave offense, but the article was in error. Michaelbusch 01:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I was aware that there was some doubt on the matter and the article didn't actually state that they did have ice/water. Even so, you removed Phobos and Deimos entirely from an article on ISRU, and both Phobos and Deimos may contain other materials which could potentially be useful for ISRU, and Phobos and Deimos are in desirable orbits with regular launch and return windows, and with low delta-v's. You also removed the mention of ISRU from the context of colonization, which I believed deserved to be in the introduction, since colonization is essentially impossible without it. We don't know what is below the surface of Phobos and Deimos, where ice would have presumably been more likely to have been anyway.WolfKeeper 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Still, the arecibo results are rather interesting.WolfKeeper 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Williams (photographer)

Hello

It was a long time ago sins I hade added Alex Williams (photographer. However i´m very angry that you don´t believe that he is 13 years old. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KLM-Spotting-Service (talk • contribs) 13:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

That wasn't me. I was the one questioning whether the material on Concorde's autopilot was legal to add to the article. So far as I know, it's not.WolfKeeper 13:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ficticious Force

I'm sorry, but I think that's a very accurate edit summary that tells everyone exactly what I was doing and why in a very succinct way. I said nothing about any editors and speaking negatively of terrible content is a very reasonable action. I regret it if you were offended, but I don't know any word for spade apart from spade. WilyD 14:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC) +

Well, you know, you're right, why should I care what you think about my edits? You can't even spell fictitious. The facts remains that: a) 'pseudo force' is used more commonly than 'fictitious force' b) the term fictitious is self-evidently a misnomer, and confuses the heck out of people for that reason c) Richard Feynman prefered the term.WolfKeeper 19:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

AFAICT the only reason the article stands as it is is because some (mostly elderly) scientists were taught it, and hence appears in 3 key places so there is slightly more weight behind that usage than there really should be, in spite of the fact that far less people use the term 'fictitious' anymore. But it's still bad and harmful.WolfKeeper 19:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything that is fictitious doesn't exist at all. Something pseudo does. That's the difference. The coriolis force is a psuedo force due to inertia. If it was a fictitious force it wouldn't exist, it would do anything in any way. Sherlock Holmes is fictitious, he doesn't exist. If somebody is a pseudo Sherlock Holmes he dresses like him or acts like him or something, but he does exist. Right? It's just basic English.WolfKeeper 19:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, that's why we wikilink things, so people can read about what a ficticious force is. I can't find the term pseudo force used in any mechanics textbooks, and we owe it to the reader to use regular english, rather than choose an obscure phrase in the hope that it will make them less, rather than more, confused.

FWIW, your assertions that Ficticious force is not the overwhelming preference is unsupported and fails the I know from real life experience it isn't true test that'll get you past sourcing stuff on occasion. Every physicist I meet, talk to, et cetera uses Ficticious force, and probably most have never heard pseudo-force - this may not sound like much, but I am an astrophysicist, so I do interact with a fair few physicists.

Anyways, this isn't the point. The point is: One textbook using a phrase is not good evidence the phrase is common, especially when it doesn't appear in most (all?) of the more specialised texts. Ficticious force is a fairly specialised topic, so being correct in our use of language and equiping the reader to learn more about it should they want to go beyond the encyclopaedia article is important. WilyD 15:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] name?

thanks...i am new here, just following the directions on line....??? but you say, not to do this?  ??? perhaps the directions should change?  ??? or direction be made clearer??? thanks for advice...........--

[edit] G-force

Thousands of articles link to G-force; if you're going to run around changing things, point those articles to the right place first.

No, about 120 references. There's not 1000s. I've already done the redirects.WolfKeeper 04:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read up on WP:DAB so you know how to structure a disambiguation page. Josh Parris 03:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The way it was before, G force was a dab page with a lot of entries. G-force was a redirect to the dab page as an alternate spelling. Now you've moved another page into G-force, but there's no link on that page to the dab page for anyone that might be looking for any of the other entries. Then you copied and pasted a talk page instead of moving it, breaking the history, and leaving a redirect at the old location, which is still an independent article. In short, you horribly broke something that was working fine before you messed with it. I'd move it all back myself, but you've apparently gone and changed a bunch of links that would probably need to be changed back. Either change it all back, or clean it all up and do the move right, making a separate dab page at G-force (disambiguation), redirecting G force to G-force, and putting the proper dab links at the beginning of G-force and any other article that might even remotely be accidentally landed on. --adavidw 05:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Took care of it. --adavidw 05:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks! It was actually a huge refactoring I did there's been surprisingly few issues.WolfKeeper 05:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Richard Bennett/Network neutrality

Hm. If he hasn't lightened up since I last spoke with him, I'd suggest escalating things past just my one voice -- either to WP:RFC or WP:AN (or WP:AN/I), as you feel is appropriate. Perhaps more community attention will be enlightening. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd think a banhammer would be simpler, but sure. You might also want to check with admins User:Jpgordon and User:MCB, as both have direct off-wiki experience/knowledge of the guy and could offer advice/support. --Calton | Talk 02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, you also have to sign, you know. --Calton | Talk 05:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We've got 48 hours, no particular hurry. I also gave User:ThuranX a heads up.WolfKeeper 06:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Will have a bit more time, tomorrow, but sure, I'll have a look. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave me out of it. I have ZERO confidence in ANY wikipedia conflict resolution system. Richard Bennett will not stop, and the admins will not try to stop him in any way. Good bye. ThuranX 21:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

All you would have to do is sign; there's no need to be involved in any other way. And I think you're wrong about this, the admins have acted before, and are likely to again.WolfKeeper 22:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No disrespect, but I think you're being excessively legalistic regarding standing. I'm (unfortunately) directly involved as one of the targets of his behavior and RichardBennett has been warned about AGF, NPA, etc: I qualify as a certifier under the former and nothing requires, as far as I know, that I must be the messenger of the latter, so I'm moving my sig back under Certifier. I've certainly called him on use of "vandalism" [9] ("'vandalism'? Richard, you need to buy a good dictionary") and other language [10] ("Richard, false and malicious language -- like your edit summaries -- can get you banned. Revert."). --Calton | Talk 17:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So long as you add the information to the RFC, that's fine. The instructions said you had to include diffs, that was all. We've got two anyway, but the more the merrier.WolfKeeper 17:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User pages aren't talk pages.

use other peoples TALK pages, not their USER pages for leaving messages. ThuranX 06:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My abject apologies, just a spot of finger trouble.WolfKeeper 06:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] about the vandalism?

i have no idea what is going on, i never edited the "human penis" page. Quite frankly the subject doesnt interest me THAT much. I don't know who is doing this. I live in a dormitory so it might just be some sort IP adress confusion or something. Anyways, ill keep my eyes open i suppose. thanks.

andrew 16:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rocket

Hello Wolfkeeper,

I agree with the policy of one topic per page - I would have set up a disambiguation page if I could. Rocket the salad vegetable ranked higher in the minds of people for millenia prior to rocket the propulsion system. I hope it doesn't come down to competing values, each can be dealt with by links from one page - and opens the knowledge of some to an ancient and benign connection to land and enjoyment. For a great many people with links to the Mediterranean, or an interest in food variety, this leaf is almost a daily part of life.

Can you set up a disambiguation page? ~ or if I strive to learn and establish one will you remove it? I don't wish to set up a dispute.

Regfards

Drew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garrison Roo (talk • contribs) 23:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I added a line to the top of the rocket page to point to the existing disamb page. I also did a quick google to find out what people think of from 'rocket', and a lot of rocket/vehicle stuff comes up, not rocket the veggie. So I think that rocket should largely remain as it is.WolfKeeper 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Network neutrality page - introduction

Hi, you re-inserted the last two or three paragraphs of the introduction of the Network Neutrality page, which I had removed. I had moved those paragraphs over into new the "Debate" section; which means they're now in the article twice. I still think they should be removed, especially since it's a rather long introduction at this point. What do you propose doing? Yaron K. 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My strong inclination is to remove the copy from the debate section. According to WP:LEAD the introduction is supposed to introduce the main outline of the debate, so if we cut the introduction down as you suggest then we're not following the guidelines. On the other hand the introduction is long, but then the article is too, so I would argue that one is due to the other rather than simply being an unnecessarily long intro. What do you think?WolfKeeper 00:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How about replacing the current "debate" section of the intro with a true summary of the debate, on the order of "Those in favor of network neutrality argue that A, B, C and D. Those against network neutrality argue that E, F, G and H"? Currently the intro goes into rather a lot of detail about only some of them. Yaron K. 10:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There's at least 3 sides here, and the sides are all over the map really. Some want to ban QOS. Some don't. Some want regulations, some don't etc. etc. pretty much this is true on both pro and con sides.WolfKeeper 11:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever the complexity is, the current intro doesn't address it. Are you fine with a rewrite? Yaron K. 18:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are you Dan Kern?

Are you Dan Kern? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.62.58.58 (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Nah. To be honest, even if I was I wouldn't admit my RL name here. But I'm not anyway.WolfKeeper 22:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] radiation hormesis

I'm looking for a response from you over a talk: radiation hormesis.

[edit] Hi

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I've observed your efforts in upholding the Network Neutrality article. Even if there was no reason to doubt your opposing number's motives, it's clear from his condescension, his insults and his steadfast refusal of views other than his own that he has no interest in cooperating, and accordingly that your work has been valuable. That you've been at it for nine months astounds me. Want one of these? --Kizor 15:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh. I guess so. Never had one of those before, many thanks!WolfKeeper 16:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)