User talk:DAID

I don't know why anyone else would want to discuss my user page, but if you have any questions or comments, please put them here before altering my history, since probably I am the leading expert on my own life, though perhaps not the most objective.DAID (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

However, if you like to discuss articles with me, please post and have patience for my response-time.

X-ray burster
While I did not create this article, I effectively re-wrote a majority of the base a few weeks during the summer of 2007. It still needs significant work; however, based on the discussion page, there are many open questions I posed to which no one responded. Others have assisted in minor editing, but more help is needed. At one time, the article had a tag that it sounds like an essay, which is likely since I am mostly accustomed to writing essays or scientific articles. On this point I likely need significant assistance. DAID (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone on the talk page said something I wanted to say, basically on multi-peaked bursts. I'm pretty excited about that, since I'm basically an expert on the literature (30 pages in my thesis, anyone?).  However, I was not sure if this was a general relevance, and since it's my own research, I'm biased in what might be important.  But now I can cram that page full of all the multi-peaked burst information I want. DAID (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

R p - process
Did a lot of work on this awhile back. Need to figure out what to do about the alpha-p process. I don't think it needs its own page (maybe a redirect), but that's good to discuss in the r p - process. D A I D (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2010 (U T C)

B2FH
Created this page from the French version and expanded and improved it some time ago. Man, citation in wiki is so much easier when the article has it's own page!! Of course it's warranted in this case. DAID (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Carbon burning process
I've add a lot of material to this Wiki recently in an attempt to understand this process. This led to warnings placed on the article being removed. As you mention, writing about a subject helps you learn more. However I lack the physics background to be sure I'm not obscuring rather than illuminating the process. I'd appreciate some feedback. I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia so apologies if posting here is bad form.Puzl bustr (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a decent understanding of carbon burning, so I'll have a look. Certainly it's a subject worthy of an article in my opinion, so it's silly to remove it! DAID (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Electrostatic nuclear accelerator
Created and wrote this page. Edits welcome DAID (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Particle accelerator
This is a hot topic, so it's not as nice as lurking around in the dark on nuclear astrophysics articles where I can edit as I see fit. But I'm trying to help. I'm fairly annoyed personally about the discussion of black holes in such detail on a page that tells me a television is a type of particle accelerator. I wish the description of how TVs worked and how irrelevant black holes are to public safety had their lengths juxtaposed. We might get people interested in accelerators rather than scaring them away! DAID (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear astrophysics
This page was a total stub, so hopefully now it's better. DAID (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear drip line
Merged the stubs on proton/neutron drip line and put redirects. Could be factually incorrect what I said about the alpha drip line. Wrote most of the page. DAID (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Supernova nucleosynthesis
This page is a reason I don't like wikipedia, because informtion can be rather misleading, wrong, and poorly organized. But, luckily, I can edit wikipedia and try to change that! (No offense to the contributors, but physics isn't polite!) DAID (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Deuteron accumulation possibilities
I like your idea that it is deuterons that are accumulated into the atom. I thought that was also Gamow's idea. Now if you could review my contribution in Talk:Nuclear model and maybe give me some support to such an idea we might get more attention paid to it.WFPM (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I presume you are referring to my discussion on the nuclear fusion page? In that case, as I recall, I'm arguing that certain nuclear fusion processes are not happening through the nuclear reaction fusion mechanism, which I wanted to clarify on that page.  Technically speaking, the accumulation would be deuterons accumulating in nuclei, and really this is a weird way to think about things, since actually deuteron clustering is probably a very small component of the nuclear wave function.  Alpha clustering is much more common, and this is something which should be important for discussing nuclear structure, like the alpha nuclei, is useful for conceptualizing fission, and explains a lot of nucleosynthesis in the e-process.  In terms of nucleosynthesis, the deuteron is very weakly bound, so it is easily destroyed in stars, so that kind of clustering is also not really correct for astrophysics.  Otherwise I am confused exactly what you mean.  I will be moving this to the discussion page soon.  I also have not much time for editing Wikipedia right now because I have a lot physics work to do.  Sorry!  DAID (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Also note the difference in the image of the alpha particle between it's article and that used in the nuclearsynthesis article and nobody seems concerned about that.WFPM (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

CNO cycle
Started working on this article. It only had three of the four cold CNO cycles (and no hot cycles), and generally lacks various important physics discussions, like relevance, competing and limiting reactions, and so on. I added hot CNO networks, did a little reorganization of various points, and added here and there interesting points. The 'Use in Astronomy' section includes either really basic information or what I consider speculative uncited ideas about massive stars. Where is the discussion about its importance in calculating main-sequence turn-off times for globular clusters? Or shell burning in massive stars? Neutrinos are hardly mentioned. We also need a lot more citations. When I got there, we are basically looking at an arbitrary citation to Krane's text for the CNO-I cycle, and the rest of CNO being credited to Bethe and Weiszacher, who are really only responsible for CNO-I! Now that we have 4 cold CNO cycles and three hot ones, we really need to explain what ideas and which people uncovered these other loops. We also need some discussion of break-out, as well as why there isn't an OF cycle (alpha thresholds below proton thresholds in the F and Ne isotopes due to the doubly-magic nature of 16O and tightly bound nature of 4He). Speaking of that reminds me how we need pages for other cycles like NeNa and MgAl. Perhaps a very small and brief page just on nuclear catalytic cyclic burning? I forget what else I wanted to add right now... DAID (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Anti-nuclear movement
hey DAID, I liked your edit to the article but the user Jonfos reverted it. I've also recently editted the section and put your sentiments back into the lead, however I would appreciate if you voiced your support against Jonfos reverting our edits on the talk page. Sincerely. Boundarylayer (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh hey awesome! My wife asked me this week what happened with that page and I forgot I even did anything!  I'll go check it out! Thanks.  DAID (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)