Talk:Lithium burning

Regarding the copyright issue
I took a look at the page which it was alleged to have been copied from. On that page all the edit links point to wikipedia, I also looked at his brown dwarf page, his text seems to have first originated from Wikipedia in an edit by Sj. For instance "rapidly deplete their lithium" occurs in his page, it also first occurs in the wikiedit in 2005. Considering he was born in 1992, and the edit first appeared in wikipedia in 2005, he must have written the page before he was 13 if he truly wrote it. I consider this unlikely. With these two facts, I think we could make the page available again. Or we could just ask Sj just to make sure. Andrew Luo(too lazy to log on)
 * Most sources for apparent "copyvios" are indeed copies of wikipedia articles. I'm not sure why the dup detector script didn't notice this time - perhaps because some of the other mediawiki markers didn't show up?  At any rate, this isn't a copyvio. (as the edit links on the other page demonstrate).  I'm undoing the listing.  –  SJ  +  03:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)  And left a note for the script-maintainer, Dcoetzee.  –  SJ  +  04:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Disputed
Is this first part of the Lithium burning equation correct? If a absorbed a proton, surely it would become. So, shouldn't a neutron rather than a proton be involved?

n + →

CrackDragon (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Would like to see the sources for the statement. I would guess the proper chain is instead:
 * p + →  →  + e+
 * ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 20:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Should be

p + →  ( 1.7 MeV) +  ( 2.3 MeV )

Proton-proton chain reaction suggests another source of lithium-7 would be helium-3, which in turn is produced from deuterium burning, and would probably be the main source given lithium-6’s relative scarcity.

I’ve noticed the minimum size for lithium-burning to commence isn’t much less than that required for standard proton-proton fusion, and I was wondering if lithium-burning could serve as a “pilot light” to ignite a star’s main-sequence hydrogen burning--Robert Treat (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC).


 * I think all these formulae are also missing neutrino's to balance things out. Here's what I think it should be, based on information from various other Wikipedia pages:


 * {| border="0"
 * - style="height:2em;"
 * ||+ || ||&rarr; || ||(unstable) ||&rarr; || ||+ || ||+ ||
 * - style="height:2em;"
 * ||+ || ||&rarr; || ||(unstable) ||&rarr; ||2 ||+ ||$0.92 keV$
 * }
 * But I think the most important thing is to find a decent, reliable source for this information. I have no idea where to look.    — SkyLined (talk) 09:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Most university libraries should have an astrophysics text with a chapter on this in it. That said, I don't have a text like that handy. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

An IP editor pointed out at WT:PHYS that the relevant reactions are already in Nuclear fusion. The specific reactions of interest are:

That said, a) these are a subset of the possible reactions, specifically the ones satisfying the criteria given on that page for being interesting for terrestrial fusion, and b) the table's been tagged with "citation needed" for a while now. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In the above: "An IP editor pointed out..." Don't you know that unless otherwise specified, "IP" means "Internet Protocol"? There is no such thing as an "IP editor". In general, DO NOT use acronyms and initialisms without explaining what they mean in the process. Otherwise, spell them out!47.215.188.197 (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)