Talk:Canopus (nuclear test)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): French military history task force

[edit] China response

"The announcement by France in the late 1960s to test a hydrogen bomb provoked the People's Republic of China to conduct a full scale hydrogen bomb test of its own on June 17, 1967."

I'm pretty sure that in China Builds the Bomb they make it clear that the PRC had planned to developed staged thermonuclear weapons very early on (and had been working on them before their first fission weapon test). I also seem to recall that France was feeling very left out as the only nation for awhile without an H-bomb, so it seems odd to say that the Chinese only decided to detonate after hearing from the French... just some thoughts I had. --Fastfission 01:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Pretending that China built its bomb "because of the French" is preposterous. We need a serious quote or reference, otherwise the sentence will have to be deleted. Hugo Dufort 00:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a film produced by the Chinese August One Film studio called Huge Explosions in the East. In it they specifically mention that a major motivation for the June 17, 1967 H-bomb test was France's announcment of the Canopus test, which would be conducted the following year in 1968. This may simply be Communist propoganda, considering the producer of the film, however, this is not a 'made up' fact. I added the citation for this. I would not find it surprising if the development of an experimental hydrogen bomb would have been accelerated with the news of the Canopus test. Tzar 02:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lithium deuteride

Isarig has got this [1] wrong.

Dueteride, (-ide, following standard chemical nomenclature), refers to a deuterium atom, either as part of a chemical compound, or as a separate ion (not relevant in this case). It is completely wrong to pipe it to lithium hydride, which is a chemical compound, not an atom, and moreover refers, in normal usage, to a compound of the ¹H isotope, not deuterium (the ²H isotope).

What Isarig has done is like saying salt (sodium chloride) is "sodium sodium chloride". It's scientific nonsense.

It's true that the isotope of lithium used is ⁶Li, but in most sources you will find this compound referred to as "lithium deuteride", not "lithium-6 deuteride", and lithium-6 redirects to lithium anyway. (It is normally undesirable to refer to isotopes within the names of chemical compounds in this fashion, as in chemistry such numbers can have a different meaning, for example to distinguish different isomers). However, I won't object if you re-instate "lithium-6".

I can see that you might want to have a link to how ⁶LiD is used in fusion weapons. To address this concern, I have piped "secondary stage" to Teller-Ulam design. Not pefect, but better than piping deuteride to "lithium hydride", which is too much like scientific illiteracy to be tolerable.
--NSH001 17:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The most recent pipe was to lithium hydride#Uses, which explictly describes ⁶LiD, and its use as a 2nd stage in nuclear weapons, wheras the pipe ypu propose, to deuterium is both wrong, and more impriotantly, irrelevant in this context. Isarig 19:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As I explained above, piping deuteride to lithium hydride is not only wrong, it's absurd (un)scientific nonsense. I had seen that you had improved matters somewhat by piping to #Uses, which is why I piped "secondary stage" to Teller-Ulam design. That way both noun phrases are piped to correct, relevant articles: Teller-Ulam design gives a much better description than the LiH article, and the deuteride pipe takes the wikipedia user to deuterium, which is precisely what it relates to.

--NSH001 19:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The right way to solve this is to link the term "lithium deuteride", as a single link, as is done here, here, here and here. Isarig 21:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That is acceptable, although in fact what we now have is better, for the reasons I've stated.

--NSH001 21:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think what we have now is better. Adding the reference to the second stage and the T-U design is indeed an improvement, but linking deuteride to deuterium is not . I'll go ahead and link the term "lithium deuteride", as in virtaully all other articles discussing 2-stage fusion using the T-U design. Isarig 21:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the Lithium hydride article is inadequate as a treatment of LiD. Someone really needs to write a full Lithium deuteride article in place of the current redirect (and if I had access to a university library and the online scientific journals I would do it myself). And, of course, it remains absurd to link deuteride (if linked at all) to anything other than deuterium. At least we've reached a reasonable compromise for now.

--NSH001 13:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Canopus test.jpg

Image:Canopus test.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)