Nuclear fusion on Wikipedia, no gamma radiation
-
- Majordomo
- Posts: 13410
- kołdry
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
- Wikipedia User: Thekohser
- Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
- Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
- Location: United States
Nuclear fusion on Wikipedia, no gamma radiation
Does anyone find it amusing that the Wikipedia article about Nuclear fusion (T-H-L) contains no mention of gamma rays or gamma radiation? I don't know enough about physics to be certain that this is an amusing nuance, but I do know that I find it amusing.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."
-
- Gregarious
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:42 pm
Re: Nuclear fusion on Wikipedia, no gamma radiation
It's maybe a little amusing, but the article does talk about x-ray emission in fusion reaction, and the distinction between x-rays and gamma rays is fuzzy. It's more usual to call them gamma rays when they come out of a fusion reaction, it's true, but it's not wrong to call them x-rays. Also, it correctly shows photons, labelled as gamma rays, in the CNO cycle reaction image here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CNO_Cycle.svg and in the proton-proton chain image here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FusionintheSun.svg , both of which are in the article. So meh, I guess...thekohser wrote:Does anyone find it amusing that the Wikipedia article about Nuclear fusion (T-H-L) contains no mention of gamma rays or gamma radiation? I don't know enough about physics to be certain that this is an amusing nuance, but I do know that I find it amusing.
-
- Trustee
- Posts: 14103
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
- Wikipedia User: Stanistani
- Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
- Actual Name: William Burns
- Nom de plume: William Burns
- Location: San Diego
Re: Nuclear fusion on Wikipedia, no gamma radiation
There are nuances in nomenclature among physicists. 'Ionizing radiation' is used in the community for this particular case. Go ahead and insert 'gamma radiation' if you want to see a prolonged edit war.thekohser wrote:Does anyone find it amusing that the Wikipedia article about Nuclear fusion (T-H-L) contains no mention of gamma rays or gamma radiation? I don't know enough about physics to be certain that this is an amusing nuance, but I do know that I find it amusing.
It's one of those edge cases where you wouldn't be incorrect, and popular use of the term would guarantee that lay editors would revert any change.
My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
- Actual mug ◄
- Uncle Cornpone
- Zoloft bouncy pill-thing
-
- Nice Scum
- Posts: 3063
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 3:51 pm
Re: Nuclear fusion on Wikipedia, no gamma radiation
Clearly we need an expert like Bruce Banner to step up and fill in the gaps...
-
- Gregarious
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:42 pm
Re: Nuclear fusion on Wikipedia, no gamma radiation
The Hulk doesn't seem to approve of Jimmy Wales, though... at least the Design Hulk! http://twitter.com/DESIGNHULK/status/7822959175536640Anroth wrote:Clearly we need an expert like Bruce Banner to step up and fill in the gaps...
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 2574
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:15 am
- Wikipedia User: ජපස
- Wikipedia Review Member: iii
Re: Nuclear fusion on Wikipedia, no gamma radiation
Though others have pointed out the article does mention gamma rays in an oblique fashion, I note that the article also doesn't directly mention beta rays or beta radiation either. These are byproducts, though, and so it's probably not that amusing, maybe only indicative of slightly uneven coverage.thekohser wrote:Does anyone find it amusing that the Wikipedia article about Nuclear fusion (T-H-L) contains no mention of gamma rays or gamma radiation? I don't know enough about physics to be certain that this is an amusing nuance, but I do know that I find it amusing.