User talk:Wikianon: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:09, 10 December 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Wikianon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, 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! Some P. E rson 23:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

2007-10-20T16:32:04 | notepad | vandal info

cats and interwikis

I guessedf you meant trireme... Thankis for the note. Rich Farmbrough 20:19 19 October 2007 (UTC).

Citation on Galileo Galilei

Thanks for the citation you recently added to the Galileo Galilei article. I have reformatted it to make it more consistent with the style used for most other citations in the article. Please take a look to check that you find the changes satisfactory. In particular, the details I added for the reference to Brodrick's book may not be for the same edition you were referring to. If not, please correct them. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, thanks for improving the referencing on 1/0 and adding the WCCA nominations. That ought to keep the article going for the foreseeable future. I'm undeleting, rationalizing and readding the image of Junior as we speak. Type. As I type. --Kizor 20:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reactor dynamics

To someone inexperienced in such things, a 4-millisecond time estimate may sound like someone's best guess...but to a nuclear engineer, these sort of post-event analyses are quite within the realm of solid mathematics and engineering. The SL-1 core had a well-known amount of reactivity, and its control rods had a well-known cross-section for neutron absorption...etc., etc.

BTW, the 20 gigawatts is cited elsewhere, as I recall, but there's no need for it as NASA's analysis can stand on its own. If this sort of thing isn't within your realm of experience and/or education, you might want to focus on something else. No harm, no foul. --24.28.6.209 (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 == Reactor dynamics ==
-To someone inexperience in such things, a 4-millisecond time estimate may sound like someone's best guess...but to a nuclear engineer, these sort of post-event analyses are quite within the realm of solid mathematics and engineering.  The SL-1 core had a well-known amount of reactivity, and its control rods had a well-known cross-section for neutron absorption...etc., etc.
+To someone inexperienced in such things, a 4-millisecond time estimate may sound like someone's best guess...but to a nuclear engineer, these sort of post-event analyses are quite within the realm of solid mathematics and engineering.  The SL-1 core had a well-known amount of reactivity, and its control rods had a well-known cross-section for neutron absorption...etc., etc.
 BTW, the 20 gigawatts is cited elsewhere, as I recall, but there's no need for it as NASA's analysis can stand on its own.  If this sort of thing isn't within your realm of experience and/or education, you might want to focus on something else.  No harm, no foul. --[[Special:Contributions/24.28.6.209|24.28.6.209]] ([[User talk:24.28.6.209|talk]]) 00:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)