User talk:Ulrich67

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Ulrich67, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

A question
What do you mean by "URV problem"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShotmanMaslo (talk • contribs) 11:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The deleted text is a direct copy from the article given as source. Without proper quotation (marked as a direct quote) this is a violation of copyright laws - at least in most countries. If not really needed the use of direct quotes should be avoided in WP, and I don't see any reason for this.
 * In addition to this more formal reason to delete this sentence, I also have a slight problem with what it says. At first this is a speculation about possible future costs - with cost estimates on nuclear facilities being wrong most of the time. The second problem is, that it is not really related to scalability - its just a price-claim at one size, and just for one part of a power plant - so this part of information is essentially useless to nearly everyone. Finally I even have a problem with a 100 MW LFTR: This is to large for 2-fluid design without using many tubes or core sections in parallel. Thus it would have to problems that made ORNL switch to the 1-fluid design. For a single fluid LFTR a 100 MW unit is rather low power and would have high neutron leakage if not using large unit at a low power density. As a consequence break even breeding (a requirement to really call it a LFTR) in a small 100 MW unit is hardly possible or would need excessive fast reprocessing. So a 100 MW LFTR is a rather bad idea. This one point that shows that a LFTR don't scale well at all: small units up to about 10 MW may be practical as a 2-fluid design. And large units (e.g. 500 MW and up, or more than about 1000 kg fissile inventory) may work as a 1 fluid.--Ulrich67 (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

October 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=686837270 your edit] to Instrumentation amplifier may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * is zero. In the circuit shown, common-mode gain is caused by mismatch in the resistor ratios  $$R_{\text{2}}/R_{\text{3}}$$ and by the mis-match in common mode gains of the two input

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)