Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 00:14, 8 February 2023

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram 14:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Moderated nuclear explosion

Moderated nuclear explosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Possibly hoax, or WP:OR as discussed on Talk. 0 google hits, and using suspicious terms. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 08:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Bad faith nomination. Part of a pattern of stalking and disruptive editing now discussed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. -- Petri Krohn 09:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith. Your talk page happens to be in my watchlist, for whatever reasons (possibly because I had option "Add pages I edit to my watchlist" on for some time). I just happened to notice the conversation and followed the article talk page. The anonymous user who added speedy deletion template was obviously not skilled enought to start AFD procedude, so I decided to help him/her out. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 10:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete 0 Google results for the term "Moderated nuclear explosion" (well, actually, now there are 2 -- both come back to Misplaced Pages). Ewlyahoocom 09:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. ffm 12:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Although it may be factual, how would anyone know to look up this apparently novel term? --Mud4t 12:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Completely unused neologism that has had some serious concerns raised about its validity in its talk that have not been addressed. I suggest people take a look in the sources, the second one does not even use the word moderated anywhere, the first has "moderated neutron spectrum" in abstract witch is certainly not it... Looks like Petri has overextended himself and tried to write about something he does not really understand.--Alexia Death the Grey 12:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep though probably "Rename". Stalking. Disruptive behaviour. WP:POINT. User:Suva suddenly finds out Petri has another side, changes his signature so that people will not immediately notice he is the same editor and starts an AFD against one of the opponents and beloved targets of the usual bunch of meatpuppets (surprise, surprise, one of them is here already). There are ways of helping an anonymous contributor, of course, but this way - no way, Jose. I am not an expert, but I did find a number of times the term "moderated nuclear fission", which also sounds new to me, so perhaps this is a terminological problem. --Pan Gerwazy 12:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I checked with my friend who teaches nuclear physics in university and he says the factuality of this article seems to be incorrect as well. Chernobyl_disaster is unrelated to the topic. And although the concept has some basis, the information is seriously misinterpreted in this article. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 12:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This just isn't an accepted term by anyone except the writer of the article and it shouldn't become one as it's entirely misleading. A nuclear reaction, as in a power station, is moderated by graphite or heavy water. A meltdown is caused by a LACK of such moderation and a meltdown isn't an explosion of any sort. There is no way a power station can explode like an atomic bomb. This is just wrong. Nick mallory 13:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete: as a WP:NN Neologism; WP:V and WP:OR violations. Reguardless of any junk going on between users, this article fails all three. The article is talking on the term "moderated nuclear explosion" and referring to an explosion or detonation. All references to "moderated nuclear fission" are defined as controlled fission in nuclear power plants so these are two seperate terms. I have access to the book mentioned in article and have reviewed the pdf used as a source. Neither are about this term as required To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. Heck they don't even USE the term.

Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism (as it looks like this article is doing) are inappropriate. Articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources (There are none cited in this article). If the article is not verifiable (and this one is not) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Misplaced Pages. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use. (which this one does not have). --Brian_{(view my history)}/ 13:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• comment Reguardless of any of the above stuff going on, I personally would have nominated this article for deletion today if it was not already. --Brian_{(view my history)}/ 14:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as per good arguments and excellent Google searches outlined above. Digwuren 14:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep and rename. I think the term is coined in English as a "controlled nuclear explosion". It hits 83 times in Google, including Science magazine etc. --Yury Petrachenko 18:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment From what I see, half of the Google hits use "controlled nuclear explosion" for a planned nuclear explosion, i.e. just standard nuclear explosion, the other half are fringe teenager claims without any understanding of how nuclear reactors work. Anyway, the term has nothing to do with this article. Colchicum 18:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Here is your Science magazine citation: "as he watched the first controlled nuclear explosion at Alamogordo". Any doubts that it refers to Trinity test? Colchicum 18:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • My original suggestion for this page was to merge into the Nuclear explosion article -- until I did the Google search and figured out it wasn't a real term. Ewlyahoocom 18:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It is not a real term is no reason to delete an article, except if the title is also pushing a POV. I am not a nuclear expert, but as a linguist I am sure that if the combintion ABC is incorrect, but the combination ABX works and the combination YBC works, then you have got a terminological problem. --Pan Gerwazy 18:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Controlled nuclear explosion googling gave results totally unrelated to the concept of the article. Also feel free to rename the article if you can find a source which discusses the concept. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 19:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, this article seems to be WP:HOAX. Martintg 02:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - no idea about the topic, but I found 0 references to the term "moderated nuclear explosion" in the Web of Science, Compendex, and Inspec databases, all of which index the nuclear science literature. So it seems clear that the term, at least, is a neologism... perhaps confused with something else? -- phoebe/(talk) 07:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't think that anyone is surprised by the latest chapter in the Estonia Korps! vs. Petri Krohn saga. What is indeed surprising is that the witchhunt entered a new stage, when the Korps! member nominate for deletion Petri's articles which have nothing to do with Estonia. Since no administrator has been willing to investigate the incident, I assume that WP:STALK may be thrown out the window. As for the article itself, it took me a minute to spot 450 entries on Google and 135 entries on Google Books. The phenomenon is definitely notable, and I would certainly like Misplaced Pages to provide some sort of definition. I don't see why the scrambles associated with Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren should prevent me from finding the article in Misplaced Pages. --Ghirla 09:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you - Petri is definitely stalking Digwuren - you might want to notice the large number of unrelated users, who have tried to find Google matches. And may I remind you of mass cries "NEOLOGISM!!!! DELETE!!!" from Soviets-Forever! cabal in cases such as this (you may want to search for "Ghirla" there)? -- Sander Säde 10:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The only reason to delete our article about "modified/controlled/contained nuclear explosion", as far as I can see from the nomination, is that the nominator does not like the author and considers his edits "suspicious". This is not a valid criterion for deletion, sorry. --Ghirla 11:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you had tried to read these links, you would see that the term "contained nuclear explosion" means roughly nuclear explosion for industrial/peaceful purposes, refers to explosions like the proposed Operation Plowshare and has obviously nothing to do with the things related to nuclear meltdown alleged in this article. The article is almost a hoax, people that have never encountered Petri here seem to agree. The only vote against is that of Pan Gerwazy, who has long been involved in our little Eastern European war. Colchicum 16:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a habit of browsing through Eastern Europe related AFDs. That I am one voice here and there are five of you (4 Korps Estonia and their favourite candidate for administrator) only proves that one side has mobilised and the other has not. Bad day for Russophobes as Siberian Wiki looks like being closed down. Oops, forgot: Petri is an ardent supporter of that Wiki. Note that the habitual bunch of meatpuppets is at this moemnt also trying to blank all cats Petri has created by on the sly deleting them from all sorts of articles, even the cat "Allied Occupation of Europe" from the article on the man who invented the term (). As they were unable to delete those categories, trying to achieve the same aims surreptitiously is disruption and stalking.--Pan Gerwazy 18:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

He-he, what purpose does this bunch of irrelevant stuff serve? There is much more stuff you have forgotten. I haven't cast a vote and I consider Petri good contributor in general, but who cares, right? What about Ewlyahoocom, Firefoxman, Mud4t, Nick mallory, Bschott, Phoebe, Eusebeus, Lubaf, Seicer, flyguy649, PalestineRemembered, the anon on the talk page? Are they all Cryptoestonians? Nice. Compromise yourself further. What is important is that the article is a (good-faith) hoax. Colchicum 18:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Um... I had no idea, that nuclear explosions are in "Eastern Europe related AFDs". Should I start digging a bomb shelter, perhaps? BTW, I haven't cast a vote either - I am not familiar with physics more then University biophysics course (which was pretty thorough in some areas, though), so I decided not to vote on unfamiliar topic. However, please stop those personal attacks and actually *read through the comments*, Paul. Other then Petri's vote, there is one keep - yours - and yet you go on attacking all editors who disagreed?! Please, at least try to keep your eyes open at what is going on - and attempt to stay civil and avoid personal attacks. -- Sander Säde 18:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I also don't care about physics, so no vote from me. What I do see is a term mentioned in a wide range of scholarly publications. The quality of an article about a notable phenomenon is not a reason to delete it instead of improving. As for your continuous invokation of WP:CIV, this is pathetic. Petri nominated for deletion several articles by Suva and Dig, and they ended up by being deleted. Now these guys go through Petri's contributions and nominate them for deletion, seemingly on a random retaliatory basis. Is it productive or civil? I believe the answer is obvious. --Ghirla 22:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of what may be said about you on IRC, nor do I see any conspiracy against Petri here. The article is simply irrepairably flawed. "Contained nuclear explosion" is something entirely different to "Moderated nuclear explosion". Martintg 23:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Ghirlandajo hasn't been seen on Misplaced Pages's IRC channels since a short appearance on last Sunday. I submit that he does not know what he's talking about and his conspiracy theory of an IRC gossip ring directed against him is entirely fictional.

Furthermore, as I already pointed out at WP:AN/I, the story of "<evil guy> goes through <good guy>'s edits and randomly AFDs some" is not only bogus, it's also self-contradictionary, and likely its only purpose is to smear people Ghirlandajo hates. 泥紅蓮_凸凹箱 00:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

To Sander Säde: no, I know this has nothing to do with Eastern Europe (except for Chernobyl and therefore a weak connection to the father of the Tallinn guy whose article Petri wanted to delete - but I did not notice the parallel at the time), but when browsing, I could not help noticing the Cyrillic script...--Pan Gerwazy 02:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, WP:OR, WP:RS, or possibly even WP:HOAX are not valid criteria? Владимир И. Сува Чего? 11:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I find it offensive that you guys continuously accuse me of bad faith. I checked the "contained nuclear explosion" out and it is also unrelated to the term. Contained nuclear explosion refers to regular nuclear explosion done in special chamber, to capture the energy of the explosion for either special type of reactors or for underground nuclear testing. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 11:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Nuke from orbitDelete. I don't care who wrote this, original research is not encyclopedic, and this smells like original research. _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 12:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Not a recognised term. Eusebeus 13:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Neologism. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO, WP:OR, and a lack of WP:RS. -- Flyguy649 _contribs 15:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this entry is nonsense, there is no such thing. PalestineRemembered 16:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this is very simple - it is not encyclopedic, just a confused jumble of OR. MarkBul 23:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

• Mild keep and factual comment - This is not complete nonsense, though there are problems with the article's accuracy. On a factual basis, two moderated nuclear weapon test devices were test-fired by the US in Operation Upshot-Knothole tests Ruth and Ray (see http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Upshotk.html ), one moderated by using Uranium Hydride and one by using Uranium Deuteride fissile material, both of which yielded such low energy (200 tons TNT equivalent) that they were considered failures and the design concept dropped. That said, they took a nominally roughly 3 ton device and got 200 tons of TNT equivalent yield out, which is a heck of a large bang by any but normal nuclear weapons standards. In terms of the article, I was somewhat the source in the discussion that Petri used to start this article; I'm not comfortable with how well it's written now, but I think that it's possibly recoverable to a state that's in accord with standard nuclear physics and engineering and known weapons issues. The article suffers from conflating some different scenarios a bit and some other things. I think it's adequately and better covered in Criticality accident but this article could potentially add useful information beyond that. I understand everyone's confusion right now (the article is not what I'd call accurate right now, though Petri tried to make it so). I don't have the time to fix it right away; a delete now, and recreation later with more accurate info, might be ok. (disclaimer: about 10 years ago, I did a physics model of the Ruth and Ray devices, which remains unpublished but was peer reviewed). Georgewilliamherbert 20:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But the point of the article in question is that a nuclear explosion can allegedly be produced with unusually small subcritical quantities of fissile materials, i.e. effectively that a subcritical chain reaction allegedly can consistently result in a nuclear explosion instead of dying out, rather than that an exceptionally low-yield supercritical nuclear device is possible. Colchicum 20:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, there are problems with the article's accuracy. I don't intend to dispute that (and I can't promise anyone that I can work on fixing it anytime soon). However, you are at least partly misreading the article; it does not say that a subcritical chain reaction can result in an explosion. Due to fissile cross sections being higher at moderated neutron energy levels, the critical mass for a moderated material can be significantly lower (as little as less than a kilogram of HEU, less of Pu, depending on moderator and geometry and other factors). By definition, until a fissile assembly reaches critical mass, it won't react; near but below, and you get long lasting fission chains that do die out. Right at, you get a steady low reaction. Above, and the reaction increases over time. It's just that you need 50 kg of normal density HEU in a sphere to reach fast fission criticality, and about 1 kg of uranium nitrate water solution reflected by a larger tank of water to reach criticality... . The Criticality accident article is more likely a better place to discuss that though. Georgewilliamherbert 21:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I see. I've just read your discussion (Talk:Critical mass), it is much more clear. I knew that the critical mass can be lowered, but it appeared quite surprising to me that such a small amount of water-solved uranium can do that. And I can't imagine how to make it to reach criticality quickly enough. Anyway, the wording of the article is completely misleading. I doubt that it is worth keeping in its present form, though more information on this (probably under another title, maybe in Critical mass) is certainly needed in Misplaced Pages. BTW, as to this: they take a subcritical mass of uranium or plutonium, and compress it explosively into supercriticality, I thought that only plutonium can be compressed in this way, at least with the current level of technology. Am I wrong? Colchicum 21:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Any material can be compressed; see... Fermi gas and Nuclear Weapons FAQ section 3.2, Properties of Matter. Explosive compression works on everything. Eventually, you get a fermi gas in anything. Misplaced Pages coverage of condensed matter physics is spotty, I think, but the info is out there. Georgewilliamherbert 22:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What the article (and the sources cited) claim, is that in the presence of a neutron moderator the critical mass of of uranium or plutonium is far smaller than the bare critical mass of about 10 kg. This source speculates, that with a heavy water moderator as little as 50 grams of plutonium may cause an uncontrolled chain reaction. -- Petri Krohn 12:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral -- Well, I think that the info on lowering the critical mass by moderating neutrons should ceryainly be included within Critical mass#Changing the point of criticality, where it is most likely to be looked for, but I am not sure that a separate article is warranted, as the effect apparently has no notable applications in practice. In its present version the article is difficult to comprehend, almost to the point of being misleading. Colchicum 14:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve per Georgewilliamherbert and Colchicum. No rush to delete an aticle about a minor technical question.Biophys 18:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy is a minor part of whats wrong with this article. Even if the content would be 100% valid, It would still be a neologism, a term NOBODY uses and searches for, and thus useless to wikipedia as an encyclopedia. This content can be merged to a more known related article that experts frequent and can correct.----Alexia Death the Grey 05:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Even though the article has basis as repeatedly said before, it still qualifies as WP:OR, as the sources touch the concept quite from other techinal angle. There is no source that says "Moderated nuclear explosion is a ..." There are only sources which let you wonder if it could be possible to make nuclear explosion with subcritical mass of fissile using moderation. WP:NOR is good enough guideline for deletion IMO. I would recommend the sensible content to be merged to critical mass article and rest deleted until it comes back matching WP:V criteria. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 08:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Update - I have expanded the stub and rewritten the article with new sources. (Now at User:Petri Krohn/moderated). I have also included material on nuclear weapon design. I will now paste the new version in article space and nominate it for WP:DYK. -- Petri Krohn 23:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Petri Krohn appears to intend to split the votestack into two based on the rewrite of the article. Accordingly, I reviewed the rewrite, and will vote again:

• Delete. The title of the article is a neologism used nowhere on the Web, and the content is most likely WP:OR. As a simple example, consider the usage of moderated neutrons as though moderated would be a state of neutrons. It is not; the result of neutron moderation is conversion of fast neutrons into thermal neutrons. Furthermore, the section Nuclear reactors appears to be making a political point of inherent unstability of nuclear power generations. Given that there's no other reason why this section would be relevant in this article, I would suspect that this is the motivation of constructing an article inappropriately synthesising unrelated topics of nuclear power and nuclear explosions. 泥紅蓮_凸凹箱 04:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• I see this namination as probable personal attack on Petri Korn by some of his foes. Anyway I made a research and found that there were actually two experiments (Ruth and Ray) in attempt to create a nuclear weapon based on slow neutrons (although the experiments proved the phenomenon unsuitable for this task). Here are the relevant links: , . The article may be renamed though to somewhat like "Slow neutrons based nuclear explosion" or something.--Dojarca 17:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC) we have lots of comments, we have a rewrite, we have a few comments since the rewrite, so I'd like to see if we can generate consensus on the rewritten article. Also, please no one really cares about interpersonal drama here: focus on the article not who wrote it/nominated it for deletion. Comments about the article vis-à-vis our policies carry much more weight than personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, etc. Carlossuarez46 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment What is it with you guys and "relisting"? Was the previous debate not to your liking? Give it up. Mandsford 23:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Concur with Mandsford, this has gone on long enough. While there may have been tests with Moderated nuclear explosive designs the section on Nuclear reactors makes the article nonsensical. Martintg 23:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm a physics major. Moderated nuclear explosions should be left in the dusty physics books from which they came. Its not OR, nor a hoax, nor a neologism. Its just a badly written article about a non notable subject. Operating 01:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Cut out the parts on the hydride bomb design, put into its own article (if it isn't in one already), as it is entirely legitimate and worthy of inclusion somewhere among the many articles about nuclear weapons designs, but delete the rest esp. the neologistics aspects. Should not be confused with reactor design or reactor accidents. --24.147.86.187 01:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. All WP:STALK accusations aside, this article is a jumbled mess. There might be a grain of truth somewhere in there, but it's better discussed on the established pages on making stuff blow up really good. humblefool® 07:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The subject of the article does not appear to be a total hoax, but it seems to be saying that reactors can explode like fission weapons, a claim which is not well enough supported in the sources cited to gain the prominent forum such an article would provide for anti-nuclear power activists. Extreme scientific claims need multiple substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources. Claims such as this have been discredited in arguments about nuclear power for many decades. What happened at Chernobyl surely cannot be closely compared or conflated with what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This article leaves out SL-1 which was a small military reactor which "exploded" when the control rods were ejected or were removed too far and too fast. It sems to conflate such energy releases or meltdowns with atomic bomb explosions. Several cites in the article note that the fuel assembly would be dispersed very quickly in a moderated nuclear reaction. It reeks of original research , synthesis and WP:POV. Misplaced Pages is not a suitable forum for espousing new and controversial claims in physics, nor to promote a neologism which failed to catch on in refereed scientific journals. Here I see editors claiming they are experts on physics or nuclear science, and conducting the fundamental debate on the scientific merits of the theory which should be going on among reviewers for a scientific journal. This is not a forum for debating the basic science. We should defer to quality refereed scientific journals. Edison 14:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.