User talk:Amble

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Merger discussion for Upper tangent arc[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing—Upper tangent arc —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


Comments on COBRA[edit]

You ask about the spectral coverage of the COBRA spectrometer. First, thanks a lot for being such a careful reader.

I agree that my listing 800 GHz as the top frequency is an error, and there are data up to 900 GHz. I changed the page to fix that.

The resolution of the instrument is 0.435 wavenumbers ( 1 wavenumber is 15 GHz) . THis is published in a Review of Scientific Instruments paper, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 63 (6), June 1992, page 3249, ff. However, the data in the resport on spectral measurements has a spectral resolution of 0.45 cm-1.

It is true that the data published in Phys Rev Letters start at 2 cm-1, or 60 GHz, but looking at Herb Gush's and my own notebooks on this instrument, the data are useful above the first resolution element, so starting at 0.91 cm-1 = 27.3 GHz. I had written 15 GHz to indicate the resoluton, as published in RSI, but I now have written 27 to indicate the lowest frequency with a reliable power measurements.

Mark Mlhalpern (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes--I know both Lambda and wikipedia are supposed to be referred to real literature and not be original documents. As an author of Lambda, I felt conflicted about just going in and editing that, too. So, I did not. Again, I am grateful for the careful attention you are paying to this.

mark Mlhalpern (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Simplified version of something very technical.[edit]

Trying to explain something as simple as possible.

Is not ez. So I keep changing the new technical explanation for something more simple. Just give me time before you revert me mid into this difficult task.

The explanation for me is logical. The explaining to the not technical mind is hard.

Do not make this harder for me. My time is valuable and I am not the best Wikipedia editor.

However I crucial contributions for the Wiki project. Dr Knownuttin (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Wright Brothers[edit]

Seeing as how Wikipedia has decided IP users are to be hounded at every turn, and refused to allow me to post this to the ref desk, I'll just drop this here for you: A claim I know I was taught in my US-based education and reading is that, in the very early days after the first flight (e.g. the first few weeks/months, perhaps until January or February 1903) there was doubt among many in Europe as the validity of the claims that some bicycle-building hicks from America had really done it. Such doubt is totally rational and I can't blame them for it, but in retrospect you could categorize it as "laughing" at them. Whether such doubt truly existed, I do not know. Incidentally, even in the US there was friction with regards to their claim; as our article notes, for decades after their first flight The Smithsonian refused to acknowledge it as the first, instead preferring the work of their former secretary Samuel Pierpont Langley; it was not until 1942 that The Smithsonian softened their tone, and it's a small wonder (and a testament to just how important The Smithsonian is in American History) that the Wright Flyer ended up with them at all! 97.93.100.146 (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I knew about the dispute over credit for the first flight, although I had previously thought that was more an argument over definitions than a real doubt as to who had done what. In fact (as you say here, and I added at the ref desk), the Wright brothers did get some mockery in the European press even years after their flight, because their European counterparts didn't believe they had actually flown. I found it interesting that a lot of the skepticism from the Europeans was based on the Wrights' very different ideas about control and stability, which were ultimately proven to be the correct ones. Thanks. --Amble (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Quirinius[edit]

I agree with the edit - in fact I'd put it in the lead, as Qurinius' appearance in Luke is the sole basis of his notability. PiCo (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)