Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:02, 27 March 2006

Hello, welcome to Misplaced Pages. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Misplaced Pages Policies and guidelines

As for the edits you made before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

DV8 2XL 17:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Your user name

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. I couldn't help but notice your chemistry-related user name. I also see that you've contributed to some of those difficult-to-pronounce chemistry articles, so you probably have a pretty impressive résumé. You can share your credentials with other Wikipedians by putting a brief autobiography or profile on your user page, which is the page that others see when they follow the link in your signature. Your user page is User:Cadmium. Of course, you have no obligations to do so. You might also be interested in joining WikiProject Chemistry, or you can at least make yourself familiar with their guidelines. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --TantalumTelluride 23:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I've responded to your message on my talk page. --TantalumTelluride 05:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Breast Implant

Cd, I moved your question on Talk:Breast implant to the bottom of the page - the usual procedure for talk pages is to add new stuff at the bottom, I fear no one would have seen it where it was.

As for the X-ray absorption coefficients, I doubt anyone has done a well-controlled scientific study. You could get a rough guess using silicone versus water, since the body is mostly water anyway. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 18:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

From Talk:Breast implant - "Does anyone know the X-ray absroption coeffients for human breast tissue and for silicone."

Even without using a table, it's relatively easy to calculate. Since the low energy photons used in mammography interact predominantly by the photoelectric effect, we know that the mass attenuation coefficient is approximately proportionate to Z^3. Using the atomic number of silicon (Z=14) and the effective atomic number for soft tissue, taken to be that of water (so, Z=7.51), then the silicon has a proportionally higher mass attenuation coefficient compared to soft tissue by a factor of (14/7.51)^3, or 6.47. Since absorption is logarithmic, however, that doesn't mean silicon absorbs 6.47 times as much energy as breast tissue. I assumed soft tissue composition of the breasts (using the Z for water), but breasts in older women tend to be more fatty. So if I had used the Z for fat of 6.46, there would be an even greater difference in the x-ray absorption between breast tissue and silicon.

I looked up the (μ/ρ) in a table for water and bone (close to silicon with a Z=12.31) using 20 keV photons (I think that's what's used for mammography). For water the u/p was 7.958x10^-2 and for bone it was 2.797x10^-1, for a factor of 3.5. That's lower than the number I got above, but still qualitatively a big difference. The discrepancy is due to some of the photons interacting by the Compton effect which is independent of Z. —Brim 04:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

(Moved from my talk page) The silicone used in an implant is a mixture of C, H and Si. This is different to silicon which is the pure element. Please could you recalculate for the silicone, I estimate that the empirical formula of the gel in an implant is likely to be (C2H6Si)n. Please also could you tell me where you got the table for the X-ray properties of different materials from.Cadmium 17:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

From here I got that silicon gel is actually (C2H6OSi)n, and the effective atomic number for that I computed as 10.4, which is still quite a bit higher than soft tissue. I used tables from the textbook Physics of Radiation Therapy by Faiz Khan, 2nd ed. The tables list only a few materials (fat, bone, muscle, soft tissue, air, etc.) so we can only estimate what it would be for silicon gel. The exact value would have to be derived empirically. —Brim 23:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Atomic battery

I just gave this article an overhaul. If you have a moment I would be grateful it if you would give it a glance for any glaring errors or omissions. Thanks. DV8 2XL 20:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks Cd, it was more because I have a trees-for-the-forest problem when I've spent too long on an article and I'd rather be embarrassed by my friends over something stupid. DV8 2XL 22:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Minor actinides

I wouldn't mind giving you a hand but I don't know how much use I would be as I know little of the transplutonic region of the periodic table. I am semi-retired, and spent the overwhelming bulk of my career in corrosion chemistry/metallurgy. DV8 2XL 00:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

List of nuclear and radiation accidents and forks

Not a problem Cd, I'll keep an eye on things and lend a hand editing these topics. DV8 2XL 11:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

NIMTO - copied from my talk page

I think that NIMTO should go back in, while it was only a small article it is about a real word which has been used by the IAEA. I think that NIMTOism is very real, but the NIMTO article was in a backwater where it did not get much attention. I susepct that was the reason why only 1 edit was ever made on it. I think that the history of science is littered with examples of something which is discovered and then left for many years before interest in that thing increases greatly. Please reply through my talk page. Cadmium 22:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I deleted NIMTO because 5 words taking 20 bytes or so do not make an encyclopedia article. Besides, it looked like a dictionary definition. Feel free to write an article about this topic, if you think that is possible. jni 10:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Geiger counter

Cd, two things you should be aware of: The fist person is a no-no here (Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Avoid self-referential pronouns) and there is a policy about warnings and advice, which is basicaly that the only warning that is permitted is 'spoiler warnnings' when writing about fictonal works. See: Misplaced Pages:No disclaimer templates#What are disclaimer templates So what I dropped had to go anyway. You might also check out Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer. DV8 2XL 23:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Depleted uranium RfC

Cd, Your input to an RfC at Talk:Depleted uranium would be appreciated. DV8 2XL 04:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Cd. The Section is Talk:Depleted uranium#Request for Comments. I did a great deal of editing on this page that was reverted as "purging' to 'a vehicle to rehabilitate this material in the eyes of lay readers'. DV8 2XL 21:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you are up for a fight, but editors that want to turn the Depleted uranium page into an ant-DU pamphlet are winning every attempt at establishing NPOV is reverted, other out right violations of policy abound. I know that getting involved in this sort of thing can be exhausting and if you are not up to it I understand, but if I can't get some help in this I am just going to let the article go to hell as I cannot fight them by myself. DV8 2XL 23:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Note

I do not know who DeathThoureau is, however I do know he was the one trying to put the AfD notice up. Johann Wolfgang 00:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Class C amplifier in RF transmitters

Hi Cadmium, thanks for your recent contributions to electronic amplifier. I think there is definitely some worthwhile information there that should find a home, but at the moment I don't think that page is necessarily the right place for it. I've moved the section to the talk page and added my comments. Perhaps you'd like to take a peek and see if we can figure out what the best way to find a good home for it would be. I think it's an interesting and worthwhile topic (one that's right up my street, actually!), but perhaps a little too detailed for the general article. Graham 00:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've made some edits to the article over at amplitude modulation, and also some comments on my talk page. Please take a look and see if it's OK with you. Graham 13:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the section you just added to electronic amplifier is not really appropriate. You must remember this isn't a textbook for budding designers - it's only meant to get the basics across. The long discussion of advantages and disadvantages of the various circuits doesn't belong here. What would be appropriate is something like the audio design discussion, where a single representative circuit is explained in broad terms. If anyone is interested enough to take it further, it won't be wikipedia where they'll find the resources they need. It's very easy to fall into the trap of writing a textbook, especially where the subject is one we hold dear - I know I've fallen into that trap quite a bit myself, especially as a newbie. So please don't take it personally if I suibstantially cut back what you've added. Graham 13:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to flag that I've responded to your comment on my talk page. I've removed some of the diagrams you added at amplitude modulation, though I do believe they are good work and should go somewhere - but please read my reasoning first.Graham 11:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello! I thought I might introduce you to the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Chemistry! --HappyCamper 02:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Technetium corrosion inhibition

Since the whole matter is muddled as it is, and your additions are partly contradictory to the talk page, authoritative references would be welcome. Femto 11:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Luton flashover

Hi, thanks for your message on this subject. Protection co-ordination is not really my scene, though I could possibly dig up a few references for you, including the National Grid historical policy if I have a few more details. I have never heard of the Luton flashover; I would assume that this was an earth fault on Eastern Electricity plant.

My own thoughts are that this seems to be a rather detailed area of substation design; at best the individual protection schemes are fiendishly complicated. I wonder if it might be better to stick to isses such as running arrangements and protection types (distance, over-reach, blocking, and so on). --BillC 22:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

From "you can see it from the M1", I would surmise this to be the 400/132 kV substation at Sundon (GR: TL 031272). Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any of the circumstances surrounding this earth fault. If you don't mind me saying, the section you've been adding to Electrical substation is not so much about substation design as protection co-ordination and distribution system design. Maybe it would be an idea to think about placing this in separate articles. Also, I would have a look at removing some of the details specific to the UK, otherwise someone is likely to place a {{globalize}} tag on it. Regards, --BillC 22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I put BillC's mention of the Sundon substation into LexisNexis and got an article dated Oct 12 1988, from The Times (london). I probably can't post the entire article to wp for copyright reasons, but I can offer you the useful excerpts:

• "Britain's worst peace-time power blackout was averted by 60 seconds"
• "The event is outlined in a technical paper submitted by Mr Eric Eunson, head of the System Development Branch of the board"
• "The description of the breakdown says that 'during thunderstorms accompanied by torrential rain' part of the 400kV supergrid was disrupted by lightning on 20 May, 1986, during storms. It caused 'circuit trippings' at the Sundon substation in Bedfordshire."
• "The crisis was resolved by the speed with which operators brought 1,000 megawatts of emergency gas turbine generators into operation."

The reason the article date is so far from the event date is the article was about evidence given to the "Hinkley Point C Inquiry". I can't find thier proceedings online, but you can access them via the national archives, in dead tree format, in Kew. I'd have thought Eunson's technical paper would be availiable there.

Of course, I may have tracked down another incident entirely.....

Hope this helps! Mike1024 (t/c) 19:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Now this particular incident I do know a little more about. However, it doesn't seem to match the description of the problem which affected Luton. The issue in 1986 was the loss of several 'Flow South' circuits due to near-simultaneous lightning strikes, leading to depressed voltages in southern England. As Mike1024's article says, voltage collapse was averted by the national generation despatch engineer quickly instructing southern-based gas-turbine generators to run. --BillC 20:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That was the only reference to 'Sundon substation' I could find in the LexisNexis newspaper archives (which seem pretty extensive) - any suggestions on other words/names to search for?

I'll ask around and see if I can get any more information. I'm afraid my course is more electronic than electrical (i.e. more milliwatts than megawatts; mobile phone design rather than power grid design and so on) so I don't have the most complete knowledge in this arena...

Thanks, Mike1024 (t/c) 22:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

AM

Thanks for your comments. In no way do I ever guarantee that my disambiguation fixes will be 100% accurate or the best way to go. Of course, if another editor who is more familiar with the content thinks that one of my fixes should link to something else, I encourage them to change it, so long as they don't just flat out revert it so that it is linking to the disambiguation page again :-) Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 02:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Biological half-life/Biological halflife.

I redirected the one I started over to yours, there wasn't much in mine worth merging. However I started the page because of some red-links with the hyphenated spelling and now their covered too, so the exercise wasn't a complete loss. --DV8 2XL 18:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

UO3 gas

I'm an inorganic chemist too, and I don't buy into it ether. I put up the article Uranium trioxide with a section on this listing the references that had been put forward by an editor in the Depleted uranium#Health concernsdebate we are engaged in largely because I wanted to start a discussion on this topic outside the quagmire of the other argument. Please look over them, I came to the same conclusion you did, however I haven't had the time to run the papers down yet--DV8 2XL 16:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for interfering with U03! I will help when the dispute is over. I will try to follow the discussion, but I am away for a week.Stone 15:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Molybdenum hexacarbonyl

It seems that for a key synthetic intermediate like moly carbonyl we are giving a lot of play to tangential work by Feldmann. Its nice work but I lean toward de-emphasizing tangents and toward deemphasizing individuals. One could read all the major reviews of Mo(CO)₆, and not find this stuff. So I am curious about your latest inclusion. Smokefoot 15:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

picture unPOV

the nuclear fuel cycle picture is unpov because the nuclear fuel cycle is not round but linear like a chain. in most countries, most of the fuel is NOT recycled! --Enr-v 03:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear fuel cycle is a once through cycle in most countries. In some countries like in France, a part of the used fuel is send to reprocessing and only Pu is recycle into MOX for feeding some special reactors (see also fr:MOX). Cycles using Pu and U or Pu, U and minor actinide recycle, have a reality for theoretical physics, not for the factual nuclear fuel chains. --Enr-v 13:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

very few tonnes of plutonium oxyd are reused mixed with fresh uran into MOX, which feed some reactors in France, Japan and UK. that does not mean the nuclear fuel chain is "closed". after as few dangerous road trips as possible, most of nuclear fuel end in waste storage facility. in France, edf try to recycle U in 2 reactors of the Cruas power plant, but it is not efficient and very expensive. --Enr-v 18:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

the picture is still not neutral. --Enr-v 21:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Your question to me

• Answer for you on my talkpage Deviate to excel

About the Car battery article

I posted a little something here: Talk:Car_battery

Tony Bruguier 03:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Various nuclear topics

I like the idea of userboxes for ones nuclear idiology. I've looked at the Nuclear reprocessing page and it doesn't look like it needs reformatting yet, but I'll keep and eye. You have done some good work there BTW. Subcritial reactors - the passage should dwell more on the fuel aspects than the reactor technology IMHO which is why I pulled it - if it's rewritten in that way, then yes it should have a place as should every other potential cycle. I like the graphs you've put in nuclear fuel cycle too.

Also could you weight in at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Enriched limit? --DV8 2XL 03:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Post Irradiation Examination (PIE)

Hi Cd, I saw this new add'n to nuclear fuels and I was wondering if if wouldn't be better placed in nuclear fuel cycle --DV8 2XL 09:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll defer to your opinion on this issue - your probably right. DV8 2XL or deviate to excel was a vanity licence plate that I saw many years ago, plus in the distant past I was active in amateur radio and this screen name has the flavor of a call-sign. Silly reasons I know, but there they are. --DV8 2XL 13:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Airdosechernobyl.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Airdosechernobyl.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Misplaced Pages talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 12:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please consider rendering an opinion

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Clean safe nuclear energy thank-you --DV8 2XL 09:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Benjamin Gatti

Benjamin Gatti's ArbCom case has been settled and judgement rendered: he has been placed on probation for one year, and expressly forbidden from disruptive editing. To be banned, three admins must agree, however one can suspend him for up to a week. He is probing with this to see if there are in fact three admins here that will respond (in which case he would still get only a week or two for a first offence) to test the limits of their patience. I think he is going to find out. --DV8 2XL 19:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Airdosechernobyl graph

Hi, I have started to take some steps towards making a more copyright free version of the graph. I have taken public doman data from the OECD (same source as the graph), plus some other data which is freely avaiable, and some data from a data book, I have redone the calculations in excel and drawn a new graph which displays similar data.

If I then cite the sources of data when I upload the graph, as I calculated the lines for the graph and made the drawing, do you think that I will legally own the copyright and thus be able to sign it away ?Cadmium

If you make the image yourself from data, then yes, you do own the copyright. --Carnildo 07:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Used fuel

Hi Cd,

I agree that this needed to be forked out of the Nuclear fuel article,, but I also think you should add a short summary - not just a redirect. Also the MOX section is a bit too detailed given we made it into a new topic and could use a trim. What do you think? --DV8 2XL 17:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that MOX needs to be grown --DV8 2XL 17:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

great work on MOX, Cd and the graphs are nice, but I can see that your right that this might need an article of it's own in the future. --207.164.4.52 19:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The above comment was by me Cd, the sever here at work sometimes drops session data while I'm signed in and my edits appear as an annon --DV8 2XL 22:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles

Thanks for coming on board Cd, I am getting close to the end of my rope over this and fresh blood is a big help. You can follow the "ATOMIC GAS" farce here Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles/UO3 vapor. Also could you help me keep an eye on uranium trioxide. Another chemist Smokefoot cleaned it up, but our friend James is editing in more of his own delusional ignorance on to the page. Smokefoot thought it was some sort of bad joke until I told him what was going on and he decided not to get involved. --DV8 2XL 19:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Abitraton

Saluté Cd,

What happens next in this process is that we all make opining statements that the arbs will use to determine if the case has merit. If they accept (and so far two of them have), we will go to the evidence stage, where we will be expected to provide links to places at Misplaced Pages where the accused has violated the rules. When the evidence is in the arbs open a 'workshop' page and we spend several months arguing. Then a proposed decision is made on another page (arbs only) and the case closed and the decision handed to the Admins for execution.

If you want to make a statement please do, but short-and-pointed are the way the arbs like it. If the accused answers your submission - let it go - arguments are for the other pages. It will undermine the case if we start fighting in discovery. And James knows this.

There is nothing forcing you to get involved BTW. --DV8 2XL 22:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cd; arguments are underway, please come and join the fray at your earliest convenience. It's vintage James and shouldn't be missed. --DV8 2XL 04:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

All arguments presented to ArbCom should be on violations of policy, and not content. ArbCom's mandate does not allow it to rule on the latter. As you can see James is taking the position that he is the wronged party here, and applying the strategy of mounting an offence in the way of a defence. He is pursuing an attack of bald-faced lies and you can help by pointing these out where you can; if I am the only one then it will come down to his word against mine. --DV8 2XL 15:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Cd, thanks for your input at ArbCom, however content issues should go on Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles/UO3 vapor as ArbCom won't entertain discussion on content. --DV8 2XL 19:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cd'

I wouldn't hazard a guess about James' motivations, and in the context of the wiki I don't consider it my concern. Is James is likely to be more reasonable an editor than Benjamin Gatti? I think they (and several other scofflaws about the project) are all cut from the same cloth in that they believe that they're above the rules of conduct and intellectual standards that Misplaced Pages was built on.

Also I don't think the issue is pro-con nuclear per se; James and I agree that DU ammunition is Not A Good Thing, we differ on the type of evidence and how the issue should be presented. I have been involved with this material for a good long time as I was involved at one point in my career in it's handling, refurbishment and disposal in its role as aircraft trim weights. I have also dealt with unreasonable fears and overly cavalier attitudes among people handling the stuff. He might also be surprised to find that I share his jaundiced view on the quality of the official research in to the health and environmental impacts of DU - but I also don't have any confidence in the unofficial ones ether, and for the same reason; they are both burdened with economic and political baggage. My stand is now what it was then; err on the side of caution - but don't panic.

I am not monitoring the proceedings for the moment as I don't think I can make a contribution to a process that has descended into farce. I will check in later this week and see if things have improved.

Oh, and if you can make James see reason on this subject , you're a better man than I. As you can see from below, you have your work cut out for you. --DV8 2XL 15:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

What do you think about the earilier references I added to uranium trioxide, in terms of the percentage of U which becomes UO₃ at some point when U burns in air at STP? --James S. 17:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your request that I go to the library for you

It's not so much whether the UO₃ gas is produced, because there is no fire (remember, fire is ions from heat falling out of plasma) without at least some of all the major oxides, and in either a uniform or normal distribution of all the likely molecular weights, it's the amount of UO₃ produced. It has to do with the dispersion (other papers in the same and containing directory; new ones below from Uranium trioxide.) Even the U₃O₈, which represents roughtly 75% of the particulates, dissolves partially into uranyl ions when inhaled. The UO₃ is sort of the principle of the thing: Anyone who knows so little as to argue against its possibility is obviously someone I don't want to to be learning combustion statistics from.

So, which of these can you find in your library, and which do you need me to scan in for you?

• W. Blitz and H. Muller (1927) Anorg. Chemie 163, 257.
• R. E. Rundle, N. C. Baenziger, A. S. Wilson, and R. A. McDonald (1948) J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 70, 99.
• K. B. Alberman and J. S. Anderson (1949) J. Chem. Soc. 5, 303.
• H. Hering and P. Perio (1952) Bull. Soc. Chim. 351.
• P. Perio (1953) Bull. Soc. Chim. 256.
• F. Gronvold and H. Haroldsen (1948) Nature 112, 69.
• F. Gronvold (1955) J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. 1, 357.
• H. Hoekstra and S. Siegel (1955) J. Phys. Chem. 59, 136.

--James S. 14:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Forget those, sorry, I was reading a sentence wrong. We want the U.N. proceedings. Give me a few days. In the mean time, please have a look at the "1/3" recombination requirement at the bottom of page 213 of Wilson (1961). Thank you for your help. Sorry about the wrong cites. --James S. 20:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

UO₃(g) condenses

I never said it doesn't condense. Until it does, however, it's a gas, not an aerosol. --James S. 15:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that book ref. Section V.3.1. starting on page 97 (pdf page 115) isn't very clear. The four thermodynamic parameters they give aren't very useful for predicting combustion products. But in a world where people purport to do safety testing by measuring particulates and ignoring vapor condensates, what should we expect? --James S. 04:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Your current opinion?

Do you still believe this?

I think that James should stop pushing his uranium trioxide gas ideas as these ideas appear to be unreasonable. Cadmium 10:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The reference you provided shows their free net negative energies of formation. Do you have any remaining doubt that uranyl oxide vapor is a combustion product of uranium? In any case, please update the arbitration comments page with your current understanding. Thank you. --James S. 19:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear James, I have made an update. I have looked both at the section on UO_{3 gas and the crystaline forms of UO3. I have calculated ΔG for the formation of vapour. I think that an isolated ΔG or ΔH of formation value says little. I think that ΔG for a reaction says more. I am sure that ΔG of formation of methane is negative, but methane is not stable with respect to burning to water and carbon dioxide.Cadmium}

Would you plese answer the question?

In response to your recent question, I am strongly opposed to whitewashing health and safety information from subject pages, and have provided my several reasons in response to your message to Mindspillage.

Why did you claim that you have provided me with information about plutonium? You have not. --James S. 02:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Replies

I did write the passage about staying in the atmosphere for weeks, based on the CRC "Particles and dispersoids" chart. Certainly a burn in an enclosed space will condense more quickly than UO3(g) from a burn in open air; Salbu 'et al.' (2005) describe just such a difference between the tank hits and the armory fire. I do not yet understand the Born-Haber cycle and its implications, but am following your work with interest. Thank you for your continued support of truth. It might help to remember that, of the solid particulates, 75% turns out to be U3O8 and 25% is UO2. --James S. 20:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Correct on U fire fume cooling

Thank you. I agree with your description of the gas cooling process. Since what actually matters is the proportion of soluble uranyl ion (even partially soluble) I do not care if the actual amount of UO₃(g) which survives in the atmosphere for weeks is small. It all depends on the amount of dust in the air, and "air" is usually defined as just a solution of gasses. Everyone assumes that there will be some particulates, but they don't call "air and particulates" by the name "air" in formal chemistry. In applied combustion chemistry, I understand that there will be a lot of particulates, and only the proportion of the gas which disperses faster than the particulates is likely to keep from condensing. But then again, small U3O8 particles (in the thousands of AMUs) are very quickly absorbed and dissolve into a large fraction of uranyl ions if inhaled. --James S. 23:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I could not belive to read this! Small particles of U3O8 which are easely absorbed in the lunges! I will also state that UO3 particles are more dangerous, because they have the right oxidation state for uranyl ions. This is absolutely right and will have my full support in the Misplaced Pages! Very small amounts of gas escaped condensation, if calculated right, only a few, do not contribute significantly to the hugeamount of toxix uraniumoxide particles! Also right, will also have my support! Looks we get to some consensus somehow!--Stone 10:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

I haven't really looked at that case yet, so I can't give much specific advice. However, if you have any suggestions, please make them known on the talk page or the workshop! If a case can be reasonably settled where no one needs to be banned, that's always a good thing. If you'd like to know when the case seems likely to end, watchlist the Workshop and Proposed Decision pages, and you'll see when the actions starts; cases get moving when someone gets around to them and we think everyone's presented enough evidence, and nothing more certain than that. And if there's anything you'd like to mention to the committee in private, email any arbitrator with it and it will be passed on to all of us. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Cd, it would be best if you kept in mind that James was brought to Arbitration on points of conduct - not on a content issue. I will also point out that he was brought there by the mediator in the content dispute, which is still open, and properly much of the work you have done on the arbitration pages belongs there. I took the liberty of copying your calculations on the Born Harber cycle to Talk:Uranium trioxide where they will find a wider audience, but you should consider moving your scientific arguments off the arbitration pages and on to the mediation pages before one of the Clerks refactors them away as content issues. ArbCom will not intervene in content issues and has made this very clear in the past. Your approach to this issue is a valid one; you're just doing it in the wrong place. Please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles/UO3 vapor and join us there. --DV8 2XL 21:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Cd unless you want to wind up joined to this ArbCom case I strongly suggest that you don't deal directly with the arbitrators. There is a risk that others may complain and she would have to recuse herself. This is going to take long enough as it is without sidebars on issues like this. All content related ideas for the articles under dispute should properly go on the mediation pages mentioned above. Arbitration is not going to deal with content, what ever they decide we will still have to deal with the pages in question, and that project is being discussed on the mediation pages. --DV8 2XL 04:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Politics on DU UO3 gas

We should mke clear that the gas is disputed. Is there an easy methode to stick a disputed tag to the UO3 sections in the differnt articles?--Stone 10:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for images

Hi,

I see a lot of people posted on you talk page today, so surely one more can't hurt. Thanks for your images of the Chernobyl radiation components! One minor request, then? If you do future images, could you do them in the scalable vector graphics format instead of jpeg? The SVG format tends to display much better; in particular being readable even when small. Its near-ideal for graphs. Thanks. linas 05:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

Pardon me, but don't you mean that my edits seem as if I were irate? Likewise. It is hard for me to see why anyone wouldn't be irate about the release of teratogens in the atmosphere by those nominally charged with our defense. Do you have any reasons that anyone should not be irate about that? --James S. 10:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

JamesS

I will no longer soil myself by debating with this deluded crank. In my opinion his rubbish should have been reverted away with no more concern that we give to the smutty vandalism of teenage schoolboys. The spectacle of seeing several Phds dancing to the tune of that ignoramus was almost more than I could stomach; to have two other editors come out of nowhere to chide ME for MY attitude was too much. Apparently this community holds crackpots in higher esteem than those who actually know what they are talking about. I wish you luck in making that cretin see reason; I have given up. --DV8 2XL 03:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)