User talk:Parronax

Thank you for your contribution on the page French Invasion of Russia, very interesting topic you had brought up. Thank you. --Arusmanov (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cobalt bomb

Hi there. I saw your contribution to [Cobalt bomb] ("...and may not allow the Cobalt-60 to contaminate the largest possible area") and was wondering about your source / reasoning on this. Since the talk page of that article is a bit... well... "emotionally loaded" for lack of another word, I thought I'd ask you here. Are you infering this from the reduced yield? -- DevSolar (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'd like to note a couple of things: 1) Even if the casing is to "contain and focus the energy of the primary stage", it will be obliberated by it. "Containing", here, means "containing for a split-second before being annihilated", i.e. the primary stage alone is more than sufficient to blow the casing apart (and then some). 2) The only line of reasoning I would be willing to follow is that, with regards to 1) above, Cobalt is less dense, and thus less efficient as a casing material, than e.g. Uranium. 3) I don't think it matters much for the eventual fallout if the Cobalt is on the inside or the outside of the chain reaction; fallout is propelled by the intense heat throwing matter into the stratosphere, not the initial explosive blast. 4) All this is neither here nor there, as what we're doing here is called "Original Research", and thus not welcome in WP articles. ;-) Regards, -- DevSolar (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did the revert. Please don't take it amiss; I wouldn't have focussed on such a small sidenote if it weren't for previous edits by other users where I had a hard time to assume good faith. You, sir, have been exemplary in handling this discussion! -- DevSolar (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]