User talk:AKAF

This is my talk, leave a message

Here is another explanation

Here below are your claim. And below you should find my explanation.

Lock Sir, Wikipedia isn't yours. If you don't know the topic and you do not have the education than perhese you should work on the English. If you insist that you know the material, at least read the report that you allege to have the solution. Just page 10 it is only 10 lines above NACA113 equation 150a to the equation. Genick --potto 05:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The standard analytical solutions to the oblique shock can be found in (for example) NACA1135 equations 115-170. If you claim that you are the first person to find an analytical solution to the oblique shock, I think you'll be disappointed. Your research may indeed be (new,interesting,correct) and if you can provide a refereed publication which agrees with you, then it could be added to comments about the standard solutions.

Good that you brought this point. Read the NACA1135 report and refer to the wiki article on oblique shock. or to NACA 1135 page 10 equation 150a. It state "No convenient explicit relations exist" please locate it in the report. This relationship is the most important one. Your comment simply insults over 50 Ph.D. who dedicate you find the solution to this equation (if you would like to have ref i can provide you). This solution is important because it deals with the most fundamental question what will be shock angle for given upstream Mach number and wedge angle. The approximation that confuse with the solution exist but it is wrong (this is what I refers to the error in NACA 1135. The assumptions are wrong .). Now you can review the solution, it is explicitly explain in my book or ask someone who know basic mathematic (no knowledge in differential equations is needed, just simple algebra, well, a bit more than high school, though some high school students can figure it out.). The equations that you referred to 115-170 include equation 150a (may be you should read again that report) are either approximations or showing the reverse relationship (which is 1 to 1 and not 1 to 3 (solutions)). I hope that my explanation convince you or direct you to read so that you can understand. If you understand what I am saying, should we go with the history section? or do you need more explanations? if so, what are the points that you do not understand? By The way, my book with the solution is wildely used many places. --potto 05:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC) genick bar-meir

what is your knowledge

I was checking your correspondence on shock wave discussion. For example here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shock_wave#M.3C1_behind_an_oblique_shock.3F

It cannot believe how much misconception the people (including yourself) on this discussion have. The answer to the above question is simple always for strong sock and in some conditions for a weak shock. when strong or weak shock occur is depends on b.c. If you interested in unsteady state there is third solution which is M < 1.

Another example,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shock_wave#Supersonic.3F

The discussion by WolfKeeper is totally wrong just read my book about moving shock. By the way, I was the first one to find analytical solution for this case. If he was right than you could not hear any one. Boy, he should read a book about this topic before writing this in wikipedia. genick

--potto 21:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please read my explanations

I put my explanations in shock wave article.

I think that communication this way put you in bad light. I think it is better for you to make it discrete. May be irc or other forms? also this communication take long time. Do you have any idea? Yes, I know that you don't want to reveal yourself.

mediation

Dear sir/Madam,

I request a mediation against your editing in shock wave. I hope that you will either explain why you would like to keep errors in the article or stop changing it. If you believe that your corrections are of/on any base please explain. you can find the meditation requrest in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-01_shock_wave

Genick I have nothing to hide you do. everything that I do is transparent and if you like discuss with me any of the issues or you believe that you are right and I am wrong please show or explain it.

pedelec

improvement to pedelec may warrant your re-evaluation of the situation for deletion. Thank you! --CyclePat 17:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oblique shock

I did tag the article, but I was just passing through. I'm not really knowledgable about it or qualified to make decisions about it. It does sound like several people in the AFD did want to merge/redirect it, so just based on that, it probably wouldn't be controversial to merge it. --Interiot 06:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypersonic

The idea of the "expert" tag is to try and flag the attention of someone who can make sense out of a technical article. And in this case it worked, you did a great job in rewriting it! Ifnord 15:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Horsley

It's just petty vandalism. Should be ok, unless someone complains about it, in which case we would need to delete the revision. Johnleemk | Talk 06:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Shock wave

Thanks for finishing my reversion, I'm annoyed with myself that I missed it. --Xyra e l ^T 15:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I edited it because it seemed like a vandalisation, then I discovered it was a stupid revert war :-(. I was just planning on ignoring him, in the hopes that he would get a sense of proportion; but you helped quite a lot.WolfKeeper 14:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT

this seems like an attempt to make a WP:POINT. Are you seriously claiming that Eton, Exeter, or Columbine would be not notable? JoshuaZ 15:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to add a note or rephrase to make that clear. The current wording sounds much closer to my interpretation than what you meant. JoshuaZ 16:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shock wave discussion refactored to bottom

Hi again,

I see that you cannot leave me email or identify yourself. Fine I assume that you want to keep the mistakes in the shock wave article. Could you please explain why you insisting on keep the mistakes there. If you have a logical explain (don't have to be scientific just what are you secret motivations).

I can to do one of the two things

let you keep it, insert some paragraph about the history and put somewhere big statement that

it is not make any sense scientifically, or

let the editors check which material make sense (you will have to show some credential

in that case).

I am not hiding like you. you know who am I.

Genick

Hi AKAF

You change the shock wave article and ask that I leave a message for you. You can read my reaction in talk to shock wave. You can email me at barmeir at gmail.com or tell me what is your name so I know who I am talking to. I will also would like to know what is your background so it will help me to explain the physics of shock wave and other things to you. --potto 15:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Genick[reply]

Hi AKAF. you make good points on the talk page. It's a good discussion of the subject (my own research area is shock waves in water interacting with air bubbles). It'd be good to get some pictures of shocks, tho'.

best wishes, Robinh 22:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]