User talk:mfb

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

collision-production mode[edit]

That is the official status of LHC now. Thought, it would be okay to mention it at that spot over at LHC. Though, it is not that important. (I think i added a ref for it too) prokaryotes (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

That phrase was used for April where no (relevant) collisions occured. I'm fine with using it for now, as we now have collisions. --mfb (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

EM Drive[edit]

Hi mfb,
You haven't been following this very closely have you? You ask Then where would the momentum of the EM wave come from, if not from the apparatus initially? Answer F=2P/c... Google it. Ask NASA and the other five counties that are studying the EM Drive. If you question the math, post it on the talk page or Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics but don't revert unless you have reason Sutor, ne ultra crepidam. So don't take offense that I am reverting your edits. --Aspro (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If the satellite is able to accelerate by purely internal mechanisms, this violates conservation of momentum. The details of where in the satellite the momentum is do not matter. Everyone agrees that it violates conservation of momentum unless there is some exhaust in some way. --mfb (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
?--Aspro (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Which part is unclear? --mfb (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


I don't understand the reason for your change of 16 September. It is the case that uncertainty related to the structure of the proton limits the precision of calculations of the energy levels of hydrogen. If the original statement was unclear, I would be happy to change it, rather than undo your change. — Fcy (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The old version suggests that the energy levels of muonium could be calculated more precisely than the energy levels of regular hydrogen. That is not true. The largest source of uncertainty in both cases is the proton size and structure - this uncertainy is much more important for muonium. Muonium is used to measure the proton radius for this reason. --mfb (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
You're thinking of muonic hydrogen, in which the electron of hydrogen is replaced by a negative muon, rather than muonium, in which the proton is replaced by a positive muon. —Fcy (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Oops. Reverted my edit, thanks. --mfb (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Dimensionless Constants[edit]

Please read the talk page. We are having a disagreement (deletion of Jim Johnson reference)and I would like your opinion.Thanks Jim Johnson2602:304:B10B:A640:40A9:7E78:F78E:8DA2 (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC) I mean Dimensional Physical Constants. Sorry 2602:304:B10B:A640:40A9:7E78:F78E:8DA2 (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm watching the article and discussion there. --mfb (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Mfb, I think it is unfortunate that the reference to my article on constants of nature, Discovering Nature's Hidden Relationships, an Unattainable Goal? Physics International 6 (1): DOI: 10.3844/pisp.2015.3.10. is arbitrarily ruled out. Do you think it is relevant? Isambard thinks you are voting to delete it. Also, the continued conversation: Thanks, Jim Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talkcontribs) 16:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is relevant, and I said this on the discussion page already. Please keep the discussion there. --mfb (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

RF resonant cavity thruster Hypothesis[edit]

Hi, please have a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability. Your own web page is not a reliable source. And while that alone is sufficient to make your content not acceptable: It is also nonsense what you try to add. This is not the first place where someone told you that - maybe consider as option that everyone else is right and you are wrong? --mfb (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi, please read the text of that article, it's a 'controversial proposed type of electromagnetic thruster', and the theories written in section 5 are 'Hypothesis', of which most likely each is wrong. So what's the difference to just another explanation of which i think is the most classical and only explanation without magic of all the other Hypothesis written? It's a fact that my theory _is_ another theory, at least it's my theory, and as long as noone can proove it's wrong it's a valid theory, so why do you think it wouldn't fit in here? (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, wasn't sure if you read on my IP-based talk-page, so i copied that content to here hoping to get a response ;) (talk) 08:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The most likely explanation (by a huge margin) are measurement errors in those experiments that claim to see a thrust, but that is not the point. Send your text to a peer-reviewed journal, if it passes peer review there, and others pick it up to write about it, then we can include it here. That is the difference between what you added and what is there already. Wikipedia does not judge the quality of hypotheses, it relies on the peer-review process of journals to judge the quality and on the judgement of newspapers and similar instances to judge the notability.
Your explanation would require (a) the electromagnetic wave to be outside the cavity and (b) charged objects outside. Both are not present. If they would, the device would just be an ion thruster. --mfb (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the explanation. This explanation does not need charged particles outside, that's the new and interesting thing in this specific solution, but anyway as it's not peer-reviewed an i see no chance how i could achieve this i'm not going to post it again. thanks anyway (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you![edit]

Space-Barnstar-1j.png The Space Barnstar
For your work adding to the content at List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches‎ and on the talk page there. Good work. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 15:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

HELP: Associate article en:GRB 160625B with item wikidata:Q33520039?[edit]

Thank you *very much* for your recent help with my newly created article "GRB 160625B" - Help, if possible, (I'm a first time user re WikiData) => How do I associate article " " with Item " "? - TIA - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

On Wikidata, click on "edit" in the Wikipedia section. "wiki"="en", "page"="GRB 160625B" (the title here). Then click on "save" - done. --mfb (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply - excellent - all now seems *entirely* ok - esp after an article "purge" - thanks again for your help with this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

KIC 8462852: Difference between revisions[edit]


If I had found this before I made the change I would have talked to someone about it.

I still maintain that a Flux is a rate per unit area. This is discussed here Flux as flow rate per unit area. Look at Transport fluxes in the above article they are all Some unit m^-2

The sensor measures photons. They arrive at a certain rate and the sensor has an area. Thus photons m^-2 s^-1. The sensor can possibly detect single photons and has a collection area if this is what you want to say please do so but do not call it flux.

The issue is calling it a Flux. No, I have no alternative word.

Peter Mason

If you don't like the word flux, then why did you change something else? Flux is a very general concept and doesn't need to be "per time". See the electric or magnetic flux, for example. --mfb (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for European x-ray free electron laser[edit]

Gnome globe current event.svg On 5 September 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article European x-ray free electron laser, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 02:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour.svg The Barnstar of Good Humor
"the page stops updating if you print it", I couldn't help but laugh at that. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Hello, Mfb.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem like an experienced Wikipedia editor.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 19:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I didn't work much with new articles here so far, I'm not sure if I am the right person to ask here. --mfb (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


Sorry for having been a bit quick, Mfb.

My intention was to create a new sub-category to the CERN-category: "Computing at CERN" and have these pages tagged with this category. --Bibliophilen

The software edits were fine, but things like "touchscreen"? I created Category:CERN software, "computing at CERN" would work as well, feel free to move it if you want. --mfb (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 in science[edit]

Hey. Since we cannot seem to come to agreement on our dispute, why don't we file it under Wikipedia:Third opinion? -- (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I listed our disagreement under it. -- (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Update @ Talk:2017_in_science#All_these_fusion_startups -- (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of 2018 in science for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2018 in science is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 in science until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

2018 in spaceflight[edit]

Hello! You have made changes in Orbital launch statistics section by changing the status for the launch of Zuma using FC9, with a remark of "1 launch had an unclear outcome". Please note that the outcome is not unclear: it is pretty clear since a US official has confirmed to ABC news that Zuma "failed to remain in orbit". I understand your rationale that "we don't know if Falcon 9 failed in any way", and if the information we have so far is correct, it is likely the launch adaptor that failed to separate Zuma from the second stage. However, even if the adapter is not provided by SpaceX, the mission still failed--it doesn't matter who supplied the part, it is an intrinsic part of the launch vehicle. We can't blame an (hypothetical) imported O-ring to claim that it is a not problem for NASA that the Challenger exploded. It's still a failure for Challenger, a failure for NASA. I would like to point out a similar case of launch failure to you, which I have mentioned in the talk page: india's attempted launch of its IRNSS-1H navigation satellite on Aug 31 last year by ISRO--"The satellite got separated internally, but the heat shield did not open as expected, causing the satellite to be stuck inside the upper stage of the rocket" and subsequently brought back to earth. Note it's deemed a "Launch Failure". And this failure has been counted in every corresponding statistics towards India. I would really appropriate if we can discuss this on the talk page so other readers can contribute to the discussion. Regards, Showmebeef (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"Failed to remain in orbit" doesn't mean the launch was unsuccessful. It might have failed after launch. If we know for sure the payload adapter was the problem, I'm fine with calling the launch a failure, but currently we do not know this. I replied on the talk page there. --mfb (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, you are half right about expendable BFR spec[edit]

Házikecske portré.JPG

I found the part on Elon's BFR talk where a slide briefly appears with expendable figures for the SpaceX fleet. But, Elon does not address that slide *at all*, he just stammers then quickly moves on to describing why reusability is everything and trowing away rockets is "crazy"

So, that slide with expendable figure of 250 tons is a mystery. That slide *does not* appear in the official SpaceX transcript or the SpaceX MAKING LIFE MULTIPLANETARY Progress Report. I believe he made a mistake including that slide, and it was meant to compare SpaceX fleet with other "throw away" rockets on a level playing field, so to speak. On the stage, he thought on his feet, then quickly ignored that slide and moved on.

Is there a compromise we can make? A note in the text about the mystery slide? A LOT of anti-SpaceX, Elon Musk haters are using the expendable figure to promote CIA orbital weapon conspiracy theories.

Sierra Echo KTM (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a (planned) capability, and if someone is willing to pay the much larger price for it (still cheaper than SLS), I'm sure SpaceX will be happy to do that. Even if it never flies expendable (something we don't know today) it is something the rocket is supposed to be able to do, and for size comparisons that number is useful. --mfb (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)