Talk:Pulsar/Archive 1

Don't merge it

Pulsar is a more central and well-known concept. It should be in the heading, as far as I am concerned. A pulsar is already known to be Rotation-powered; however, the topic doesn't have to include information about where pulsars get their energy from. Okanakdogan 15:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the entry for pulsar starts talking about rotation-powered pulsars, but then later includes accreting pulsars and magnetars as classes of pulsars, neither of which are powered by rotation.

So we need to decide if the entry for pulsar is meant to cover the general term for any neutron star that shows pulsations in any waveband through whatever mechanism, or specifically should just cover rotation-powered neutron stars, also sometimes referred to as "radio pulsars". Perhaps pulsars needs to be a disambiguation page, with links to accretion-powered pulsar (aka X-ray pulsar) and rotation-powered pulsar (aka radio pulsar). Tubbs334 15:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no direct proof that all pulsars are infact neutron stars, I would like to see the entry expanded to include the ETI analysis, which is a respectable and intriguing view...i'm getting tired of having to hunt down alternate Wiki's that carry the revisionist views of subjects. I have at times attempted to add such revisionist facts and figures, but they are always reverted. Why can such a wonderfully open minded wiki fail to embrace the new ideas which, by nessecity, seem to fly in the face of conventional flawed wisdom? Janus of Dage: 2:42pm Boone, North Carolina

I agree, don't merge it

I agree, for the same reasons as given above. And for a comment made later on in this page, "After reading [the pulsar page] I still don't know [what a pulsar is]".

This is the reason why the two articles should NOT be merged into one single Pulsar page. There is ambiguity because there are different types of Pulsar. The fact is, there are several types: e.g. one that mostly emits X-rays; one that mostly emits radio waves. The X-ray version is mostly found in an interacting binary star system, and the radio version is mostly a single object inside a colourful gaseous nebula.

In fact, the recommendation should be that the pulsar page should be altered into a disambiguation page. This page should point at X-Ray Pulsars and Radio Pulsars and also pointing at Rotating Degenerate Objects (since this is believed to be the source of the pulsation period). Other alternatives can also be included in the disambiguation page if required. The two articles on X-Ray and Radio Pulsars should be expanded to take on any appropriate content from the existing Pulsar page.

Wrong talk page needs discussion split

There was a bad redirect that dumped all talk onto the wrong page...

How long does a pulsar pulsate?

I seem to recall having read somewhere that a pulsar will evetually expend all of its energy and go totally black. Is anything know about how long this is likely to take? Is it like one billion years, or ten, or more? SpectrumDT 12:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This article should indeed be merged

nuff said... CL8 05:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Pieces of poo" seems a bit suspect

Was somebody bored when they added that phrase? Or am I just that ignorant about pulsars? Squeeorama 18:55, 21 May 2006 (PDT)

• This was vandalism. I have reverted it. Thanks for pointing it out!

"I this is should be the article being merged to, not the merged"

--The Shroud 01:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What is a pulsar..

I have no training in physics (beyond grade 12) and I came to this article trying to learn what a pulsar is. After reading it I still don't know. - Abscissa 02:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Said as simple as i can: Pulsars are what's left of a supernova, an exploding star. If what's left has a mass between 1.4 and 3 solar masses, there you have a neutron star. Neutron stars' light is emitted mostly from the poles, so if one of the poles, during the rotation of the star, is pointed toward Earth, you can see the blinking flash of light. That's a pulsar.--Gspinoza 16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism alert

Someone vandalized this article, the first sentence refers to pulsars as "gay little children". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.149.238.149 (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, they still exist and many think that they are just a unproved theorey, but that is very, very, very untrue. They are very real, weather you belive in them or not!!!