User talk:Mike Young

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Mike Young, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Alai 01:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] maps

Hi,

i noticed your fine maps on the Greek-Italian war. If you make any further maps, could you please upload them on commons?

From commons, the wikipedias in all languages can use these maps as if they are present in the wiki.

thanks in advance,
Z.

[edit] Kashmir war maps

hi, the maps in First Kashmir War are good, but if possible can you change the colours used for the region of India and Pakistan to one of saffron and green respectively? The reason is to ensure NPOV. As it is it appears to show that the entire J&K region was an indian territory and that Pakistan intruded into Indian territory to take posession. This is objectionable from both parties since J&K region itself was disputed and still remains disputed. Thus if the countries India and Pakistan are shown in saffron and green - both colours regularly used by many maps to show their religious majorities, then I think the map will look more neutral.

On a similar note, don't you think that Aksai Chin should be given a different colour in the same maps created by you? after all it was and is disputed as to who actually inherited the land. Also labelling the countries as India and Pakistan will help those who have no knowledge on this subject matter. Idleguy 07:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] eclipse

we thought so too :p —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.215.45.73 (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

OK ignore that. 129.215.45.73 23:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Montgolfier Balloon.JPG

The image seems to have been taken from here: [1]. What is your contribution that you marked it with a {{PD-self}} tag? ~ trialsanderrors 03:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I took the Photo. Note the angle is slightly different Mike Young 15:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor question

May I please ask why one reference to a Pakistani writer on the 1947 arson and looting in Kashmir was (removed) in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947? Thanks. --Idleguy 15:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Pelican in its Piety

Is this image from Gillingham, Kent, or Gillingham, Dorset? Or even Norfolk? (personally I'm guessing Kent from your userbox)Totnesmartin 22:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam in Hungary

(rv West Bank boy, please explain any changes in the talk page, especially why you disagree with official government census figures)

I disagee with official government census figures cause these are unreliable sources written by commies or socialist or some extreme fundamentalist trying to hide the truth of muslims population in hungary. I just wanna notify u that im hungarian (my religion is islam) and i've seen muslims in great numbers in hungary, there's no such a thing as 3,000 or 6,000 or 300 or whatever, these are very extremely nationalist propaganda done by heartless hungarians from other part of the world like america who have never been to hungary nor know anything about hungary like i do as i grew up in there and experience things in there, yet the topic about islam in hungary seem to keep changing everyweek writing by some all sort of anti-Islam members of wiki who wants things to be on their way and not wiki's way, vandalising as much as they can to make a fun out these things, however this topic was to be disputed but again there's always some vandals who comes take these off without much point. It's pretty sad that there are many who has no mercy for this topic and they had to be taught a good lesson by someone moderate. anyway the reference i posted about muslim population in hungary is very much referenced as you can see it is over 606,000 not 3201 or all these extremist unreferenced sources which are damaging muslim's reputation in hungary and wikipedia itself. These are very important fundamental aspect for wiki and for muslims in hungary to keep the peace and not causing conflict for unreferenced source which provokes things into conflict and violence cause by some idiot who's writing things in wiki which can endangers other's lifes, afterall wiki is very popular in hungary. Can you imaging if Wikipedia is a fundamentalist website and not a pedia website???? geez i hardly come here cause it's getting fundamentally anti-islam and it's a shame. This has to stop.

                            best regard
                                       West Bank Boy 04:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MuslimWiki article up for speedy deletion

A tag has been placed on MuslimWiki, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:MuslimWiki. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Thanks. McGeddon 11:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

... And it's gone. If you want to recreate the article, make sure to at least explain why it's an important site, rather than just putting up a one-sentence stub summary and leaving it. As you can see, such articles don't survive for very long. --McGeddon 16:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just to say that someone appreciates your work

Your contributions to Wikipedia have been good, especially in the First Kashmir War where you've produced maps and information on the actual war. This award is in appreciation for your valuable time spent here. --Idleguy 17:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Your contributions to Wikipedia have been good, especially in the First Kashmir War where you've produced maps and information on the actual war. This award is in appreciation for your valuable time spent here. --Idleguy 17:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, hope you like the award. :-) --Idleguy 17:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretty simple actually to give an award. Just go to Wikipedia:Awards and choose from the different categories of awards and select the one that feels best to be given to the recipient. --Idleguy 03:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Ah, yes. It's much better now. --Idleguy 15:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It's upto the mark now. Thanks. --Idleguy 12:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:J&K01low.jpg

Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is however another Wikimedia foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading media there instead. That way, all the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!

Sfan00 IMG 14:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:HandOfSabazius.JPG

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion of Peace

Please don't edit my posts [2] and stop posting empty threats. Thank you. --Raphael1 16:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Though we might agree, that this source is using the phrase in a sarcastic manner, we don't have any reliable reference for it, do we?--Raphael1 22:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

hi Mike Young, the word "give peace"(verb)(إسلام) is different from the word "peace"(noun)(سلام). & both are related to the word islam by root. see discussion page. <<Smart_Viral 01:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)>>

This is ridiculous. We need to get an admin on this. Do you know anyone? Alexwoods 17:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Saw your note for Sandbox2, Mike. Feel free to make any changes you'd like on ROP. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the sandbox draft. I think it's really good - you've improved the flow and clarity of the writing, and the little columns at the bottom present the websites very fairly. I'd strongly support the change if you made it. Also we seem to be reaching some kind of consensus on mention of the websites, so the redraft's chances for success might be good. Thanks for your hard work, people like you are what makes this website so great. Alexwoods 21:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Navy

May i ask why you have started adding links into the see also section that are duplicated elsewhere. The idea of the navbox in the top right corner of the page is to provide all these links. The peer review highlighted the large see also section as a problem. There are many links within the text to these. I agree that the notable sailors section should be removed, (one section paragraphs are frowned upon). That section was a remnant from when that list was in the article. I think we only need one link though. Woodym555 15:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think most users look at the navbox at the top, then to the table of contents and then go to the bottom. If they go to the bottom they will see the list of active ships in the navbox at the bottom. That large navbox serves the same purpose as the link. I think one notable sailor link should be left in the see also section though. The WP:SEEALSO section has it in bold that links should not be repeated. (As a suggestion, you could use the show preview button to avoid clogging up the article history with minor edits). Woodym555 16:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you become immune to spam after a while. I think the navbox serves its purpose!! Occasionally people just don't see it. No harm done. Woodym555 17:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bangladesh Liberation War

This is my first post to you, and I really hope I am not bothering you bad. I am here to make a request. Can you, please, take a look at the Bangladesh Liberation War article. I have tried and improved it so some extent, but a lot more is needed. Can you give me some directions? I promise to work on them as much possible. One thing I should mention is that the article is currently heavily overlapping with with the interconnected articles linked as "see also" or "main article" on that page. If you respond to this, please, do so either on the talk page of the article or my talk page. My plan is to work on your feedback first, and then request a copyeditor to collaborate, and only then take it to peer review. Given the scope of the article and availability of material, this ought to become FA with a little help. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
Thanks. As long as there are in-line citations (or the potential for it), wikification may not be a problem. I put myself up for a volunteer already. I also have put the article for peer review. You may want to post a few comments there. Aditya(talk • contribs) 21:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I have asked toddy1 already. It has also been submitted to a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bangladesh Liberation War/archive1. There's a few maps you can use. Check the commons category at right for the maps. And, oh, can you identify the particular information that really needs a citation, POV toning, or clarity? You're most welcome to make use of {{context needed}}, {{dubious}} or {{fact}} tags. Thanks and cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I have posted to Toddy's talk page (awarding him and epic barnstar too). It seems some of his observations can be met by Indian or Pakistani editors. Can you name some who I can turn to? And, oh, did the maps on commons help you at all? Or do you need another map? I'll start working on the suggestions today or tomorrow (schedules have gone a bit hectic). Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there

Hi, I'm a "wiki" friend of Elias and me and him cooperate in edits on Wikipedia with regard to certain Assyrian articles. I also have an interest in Byzantine history.

I would just like to thank you so much for your efforts in supporting an Assyrian family. God smile upon your act of kindness for taking care of strangers.

I'm also a fellow Briton, but I don't live in England any more. Well, see ya later mate!Tourskin 08:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: missing photos

The photos were deleted because they were cited as copyvio by a Pakistani author. It appears that we may have to bide our time for a while. As per the official law, pictures taken in India have to be more than 60 years old, before they become public domain (PD) since they were first taken. Which means those 2 photos are not yet PD, but come 1st January, 2008, they'll automatically be under public domain, then I should be able to upload several images on the war. Just a matter of 3 months. --Idleguy 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow! Wow wow!!

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Magnificent map. Bangladesh Liberation War looks so much more better now. Wonderful. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National colors of Bangladesh

Hi Mike. There is no designated national color for Bangladsh. But the two colors from its flag are, of course, green and dark red. Since green has already been used for Pakistan, dark red can be an option. However, during the liberation war, the flag used by Muktibahini used a third color -"Golden", which is somewhat equivalent to bright yellow in digital sense. Best regards, Arman (Talk) 01:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Restructure

Awesome. Just one question - are we cutting down the "war" part, especially the Bangladesh part, a bit more than ideal? May be a bit on the organization on the Mukti Bahini could remain. There may also be a bit on the legacy, including artistic depiction. I am checking the article from a Bangladesh perspective, but since are still working on it and you have better knowledge of war articles, I guess, you could tell me what is best. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see your point. The long text on the war that was there previously actually had little meat, but the size fooled me fine. Well, after boiling down that stuff I guess we have only what is there now. Thanks for showing the light. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pl. give me some time and I'll get back to you. But I'm sure you must have done a great job. Idleguy 01:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion of Peace

Hey its the new user here who edited religon of peace, I accept if you want to revert now thinking over it, as the consensus is against me after I checked it and I am now versed in wikipedia's policies (i.e. consensus) however I still personally stand by what I wrote. I did what I did thinking (possibly wrong I accept) what I wrote was correct. Please revert, I just wanted a valid reason for reverting if someone did, and now I have cheked it out without going into it straightaway I see consensus is against me.Rob.G.P.A 23:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey by the way, although this is completly unrelated to anything can I use your kent userbox? I dont know the policy on using other peoples userboxes.Rob.G.P.A 21:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kent

Im not quite sure how the email works, and its probably not the best place to awnser your question, but I live in Newington, near Sittingbourne in Kent(borough of Swale), I was born in Canterbury and raised in Rochester(Im a man of Kent) some time ago now.

[edit] Bangladesh Liberation War

The Barnstar of National Merit
I am sure you won't mind another barnstar. For your wonderful work on Bangladesh Liberation War. I am making this a national barnstar to signify what it means to us the people from Bangladesh. I hope this is not too nationalistic. Thanks, man, thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historiography of early Islam

Hi, please be more careful when you edit the articles.[3]

I put a comment for you here.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London Accord

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of London Accord, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.london-accord.co.uk/final_report/exec_sum.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

According to this, the report is copyrighted. I'll have to delete the article. Sorry, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of London Accord

A tag has been placed on London Accord requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page you created, you may want to consult WP:Your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Comment: Hello again. (That is, "again", if you happen to have read my reply on the articles previous talk page before it got deleted. With the alleged copyright violation gone, there is still a possible notability issue. The article meets, in its current state, the criteria A7 for speedy deletion, and has been tagged as such. Just thought i'd notify you. G'day. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 15:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The London Accord

I have added two reasons for notability.

  • It is non-government funded
  • It is the largest investment research project to date on climate change. $7M to $15M

I hope that you will remove the speedly delete as soon as you can Mike Young (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Just stating those things do not make the article notable. Also, it is not me you have to convince, it is the whole, so you should find reliable sources that establish notability for the company, and then add those sources to the article. You can find more information about notability on wikipedia at WP:N. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 17:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London Accord

Hello. I strongy recommend you seize re-creating the article in a state that infringes copyright. I have re-tagged the article for speedy deletion, and recommended the recreation of the article to be temporary prohibited. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 07:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted this again. Please note, asserting that the website the text has come from is open source is academic. Wikipedia requires a GFDL licence, and the source must explicitly release the text to us. There is no note on the source website that the text is released under GFDL. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more help. Please do not repost this material unless it is fully re-wrtiten. I appreciate you are doing this in good faith, but Wikipedia has to take copyright very seriously. Thanks. Pedro :  Chat  08:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at your draft as requested and commented on my talk page. — Coren (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of article on the London Accord

I note that the article on the London Accord has been deleted three times now. Most administrators when seeing the rebirth of an article that has been deleted three times will (undertandably) automatically re-delete it without looking at it.

I am writing to request you not to do this, as I honestly believe that the reasons given have been addressed now.

I have recreated the article at User:Mike Young/LondonAccord. I have expanded it and added other stuff to make a useful article which cannot resonably claim to be copy vio (remember the London Accord website is open source). I see no reason why the article in its present form should be deleted. However you may. Please feel free to comment on the article on it's talk page, or even better to help me improve it by editing it into a form which you will find acceptable as an article. This is a much more sensible course of action than engaging in a deletion war. I would appreciate a "Yes this is OK" on the talk page if you think this is not an article that warrants a speedy delete.

Thank you very much in anticipation for your time. Mike Young (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. The article still contains the very same text as the homepage does which is, according to the homepages legal disclaimer, a violation of copyright. It will most likely be deleted again if added to the mainspace in it's current form. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 08:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note I have replied on User:Coren's talk page to keep things centralised. Discussion is here. Pedro :  Chat  08:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biodiesel

Your recent additions to Biodiesel - Environmental Benefits fails to mention a critical detail - the values are specific to the UK. Transportation costs, referred to as "fuel chain" (for fuel, not feedstock), were figured in, inflating the values for foreign imports. At very least, this needs to be addressed, though I am in favor of removal. It's common for individuals to overlook details when presented with graphical displays; since this display provides a distorted view of the situation, it should be removed or replaced with something unbiased. Also, other, more general sources and comments were removed in favor of this nation-specific source.--E8 (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Mike - I moved your contributions to the new Biodiesel in the United Kingdom page and also started adding internal references to this page. I need sleep. When I get a free moment, I'll work on this more.--E8 (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Nice work overall, Mike. Thanks for sticking with it and seeking out the obscured details.--E8 (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Mike - you'll note that Biodiesel will be different when review it next. Please take a look at the 100 or so recent edits and check them for technical accuracy; the fellow making the posts seems unwilling to work with me. Hopefully he'll respond to you better.--E8 (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Braveheart edits

When you say 'paper', do you mean a paper you wrote for an academic project? As well, if you wish to avoid edit-warring, you may find it helpful to leave an edit alone until the matter is discussed and resolved. Without hard citations, the information cannot be used in the article. i am removing it until the discussion on the strength of these citations is determined. Please direct your comments on the subject to the discussion page of the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
That came across as harsh when it wasn't at all meant to. I am sure you mean well, but we need some verifiable citations to include in the article, and the Slingshot bits do not seem to rise tot hat level. I would very much like to see them, but its become something of a nationalism issue at points, and I had enough of that when I was there at school (we both went to the OX, thought o different colleges). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biodiesel production

Please comment on the revisions I am proposing for Biodiesel production.--E8 (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diesel CO2

Hey Mike. I briefly looked over your computations. Nothing was obviously wrong (I computed the same conversion factor). I'm buried in grading ATM. I'll scrutinize the numbers as soon as I can.--E8 (talk) 05:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike, its a bit of a nightmare isn't it? I have had a quick look, and it is hard to figure out what is being measured. My guess would be that the bhp-hr unit is a measure of power actually getting to the driveshaft of the bus, and therefore automatically incorporates the efficiency of the bus engine into the unit. The kg/MJ is presumably measured from the energy content of the fuel itself (the thermodynamic energy)- i.e. this assumes 100% efficiency. This would give us an efficiency of the bus engine of about 37%. This seems reasonbable to me, but I couldn't swear it was the right answer.Stainless316 (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Further looking at different data, diesel produces 10.1 kg CO2 per gallon [[4]], and has energy yield of 130000 Btu/gallon. 1 Btu = 1.055 kJ, threfore 1 gallon = approx 137MJ. This gives us 0.077 kg CO2 / MJ, or approximately the same as the UK figure. I am pretty sure therefore that the UK figure is based on the total yield, so I can only assume that the much higher figure in the bus trial is the useful energy, rather than the total energy.Stainless316 (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, a few more thoughts on the C02 problem.

Let's check the UK calculation.

The UK says it's 0.086 kg CO2 produced per MJ

We also have an energy density of 43.1 MJ per Kg

so we get 0.086 * 43.1 = 3760g CO2 per Kg diesel = 3.706 kg CO2 per kg Diesel


Check the US calculation

The US says it's 633/2.68452 = 235.793 g Co2/MJ Multiply by the (uk) energy density and we get 236.2* 43.1 = 10162 g = 10.162 kg Co2 per Kg diesel

Calculation by simple chemistry

Assuming a formula of C12H23 for Diesel Fuel. Let's calculate what % weight of diesel fuel ends up as CO2.

12*12(atomic weight Carbon) = 144

23*1(Atomic weight Hydrogen) = 23

So diesel is 144/167 Carbon

144/167=0.862275449

so 86% of weight of diesel is Carbon that ends up as atmospheric C02

so for 1 kilo 860g of Carbon is changed into CO2

Atomic weight of Oxygen is 16 and Carbon is 12: So we get

862 g of carbon produces 862*(16+16+12)/12 = 3160.666667 g of CO2 or 3.16 kg CO2 per kg Diesel

Extending

3.16 kg Co2 per kg

But diesel has a density of 0.89 kg/litre

So Diesel produces 2.812993363 kg CO2 per litre

But there are 3.785 litres in a (US) gallon so 2.812 * 3.785 = 10.64 kg CO2 per (US) gallon Close to the 10.1 stated at the start!

This is closer to the UK value than the US Mike Young (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


Brain spinning out of control! Now, I have looked again, and come up with pretty much the same figures as you. When you say "close to the 10.1 stated at the start", which figure is that? The US EPA quotes 10.1 kgCO2/ US gallon, so this should be close to your figure from the chemistry.

UK The UK figure is 0.086 KgCO2 / MJ. Multiply this by energy density 43.1 MJ/kgfuel (units kgCO2/MJ x MJ/Kgfuel = kgCO2/kgfuel) = 3.7kgCO2 / kg fuel. (same as above)

Quoted US study The US says 633gCO2 / bhp-h = 0.633kg / bhp-h. Now 1 horsepower-hr = 2.7 MJ, so CO2 produced is 0.633 /2.7 = 0.23 kgCO2 / MJ, = 0.23 x 43.1 = 9.9 kgCO2/kgfuel (similar to above 10.1)

Thermodynamic (chemical) The thermodynamic yield (from US EPA [[5]], which assumes 1% not burned), is 10.1 kg/US gallon, = 10.1 / 3.785 = 2.66 kgCO2 / L, = 2.38 kgCO2 / Kg fuel. (This calculates from 2778g carbon per US gallon, = 734 g / L, = 653g / kg. From Mikes assumed formula this was 860 g carbon / kg fuel, so this explains the difference between 2.38 and 3.16 kgCO2 / kgfuel.)

So, to sum up, we have UK fuel emission factor= 3.7 kgCO2 / kg fuel

US EPA (thermodynamic) = 2.38 kg / kg fuel

US bus study = 9.9 kgCO2 / kg fuel. I shall have to go back to the UK document to see where they define emission factor, but this is not too far away from the figure from US EPA. The US bus study is still way higher, and I think that is probably due to the efficiency I mentioned before. From the wiki entry on horsepower

Nominal is derived from the size of the engine and the piston speed and is only accurate at a pressure of 7 lbf/in².[1]
Indicated or gross horsepower (theoretical capability of the engine)
minus frictional losses within the engine (bearing drag, rod and crankshaft windage losses, oil film drag, etc.), equals
Brake / net / crankshaft horsepower (power delivered directly to and measured at the engine's crankshaft)

The fact that the authors are expressing their power as bhp suggest to me that this is useful energy delivered to the bus.Stainless316 (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gif image at Indo Pak war 1947

Hi Mike, I had recently tried to compile all the maps that you created on the indo pak war of 1947, I have posted it here for preview, please comment on its suitability in the article discussion page. LegalEagle (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] carbon intensity

You wrote: "The U.S. Clear Skies Act, plans to cut carbon intensity by 18% by 2012. This has been criticised by enviromentalists as it can be achieved by increasing the GDP as well as by reducing Carbon output." Can you please clarify what that means and provide citation for the criticism? --Treekids (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This sentance is the left overs from a pruning session I did on the article. It referes to carbon intensity as the ratio of Carbon to GDP. As this is a single number this means that it can reduced by reducing the denominator (1/3 is less than 2/3) or increasing the numerator (2/4 is less than 2/3). I think it makes sense ithin the context of the rest of the article (sepecially the sentance afterwards. Feel free to correct it if you find it confusing. Mike Young (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to correct it. Cut carbon intensity of what by 18%? The entire US? What's been criticized? The act? Without citations, it's others can't check your work. --Treekids (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You've addressed all my concerns! Thanks! --Treekids (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Human races

From the r/K selection theory page you inserted

 + In his controversial book Race, Evolution, and Behavior, the psychologist J. Philippe Rushton argued that East Asians have used the K strategy to a greater extent than Whites, who have used the K strategy to a greater extent than Blacks. He posed this hypothesis to explain his observation that East Asians, Whites, and Blacks frequently lie along a continuum of traits, with East Asians at one end, Blacks at the other end, and Whites in between them. (See also: Rushton's ordering of the human races, race and intelligence.) Rushton has also noted that criminals tend to display characteristics more commonly associated with an r-strategy, including low IQs, short lifespans, large families, etc. 
 +  
 + Rushton's research has been widely criticized, however, and other studies have contradicted many of his claims.

In the discussion page I previously stated "Went looking at the reference to r/K selection theory in Race, Evolution and Behavior, J. Philippe Rushton's controversial application of this theory to different human races, and could find none, so have deleted it as marginal to the topic".

There has been much discussion on the topic and the general feeling is that it be removed.

Regards

John D. Croft (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Islam

Peace be with you Mike
Hmm, yes I guess what you say does make sense.
Thanks for the suggestion, I think I'd rather shorten it myself. :-)
Peace
'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)