Talk:Beamline

message: It has been suggested that we merge beam line] I agree, and think this is the perfect place here, to bring it over. I was unaware this was here at the time and created the other, in my error. I also suggest we keep the header section/ title of synchrotrons to relate to such, as typically these are cyclotron beam lines that produce synchrotron radiation and such. There would be a redirect on Beam line leading here. Please comment before a merge, Thanks much.  
All in favor?
Oppose? 
Abstentions?
Should we put a time limit on it say by this weekend sometime?
Scott 15:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, too late.  I did it.. ;)   If there are any objections, let me know and I'll work to fix them. -- SCZenz 16:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Beamline#Alignment could use some copyediting.  I was about to do it myself when I realized that I don't know the science well enough to really make the three sentences make sense (esp. ambiguous "this in turn" and reference to "windows"). --Kgf0 17:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alignment section 

message: There has got to be a better subhead for this section - the transducers seem such a comparitively small part of what's being mentioned.  Any ideas?  (Regarding the minor revert skirmish in that section, I do think Pigsonthewing's version was closer to the mark.  Also, someone might want a look at my punctuation cleanup to ensure I didn't inadvertantly change the meaning of anything, or group the wrong items together.) --Kgf0 21:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that was the only thing I could think of, what would you call components on the beamline? "Components on the beamline"? No where else could I see a mention in Wikipeda all summed up. Feel free to add or whatever. I want to get pics of some of the components by next month, of which I will add to the individual components mentioned. Do not be confused between thermocouple guages, one is for roughing as in Pirani and convectrons, and the other (Copper and constantine, Type K, Type J), etc. This will have to be rectified, as small as it is. Thanks Scott 01:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sophisticated transducers 

message: Noticing that Wurzeller added ESRF to the intro and the See Also, I made a new section under See Also for links to selected facilities.  I did no particular research to determine "notability" aside from knowing what I was familiar with, so have at.  My intent was merely to prevent everyone from jockying for position with their favorite lab.  In fact, I was going to add all the light source facilities I could find, until realizing that lightsources.org lists 59 of them!  They'd probably mostly redlink anyway. --Kgf0 21:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light source facilities 

message: Do you think maybe we should start a new page on light sources, since beamline is about beamlines, like components on a beam pipe?  Maybe include a seperate topic like the end of an accelerator, END STATIONS? Experimental beamlines, as I think that is what you are saying, experimental facility beamlines for users? There are plenty of accelerators around, should we add all of them here? 
:Hey, sorry man, forgot to mention that I took that conversation over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Light sources so we'd get the widest range of input from interested experts.  You might want to add that link over there too. And dangit, sign your posts, you Invisible Scott you! ;-p --Kgf0 17:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right CUPID, DANG-IT? LOL, and I did forgot to sign the post, most sorry. OK, I'll check it out, Thank-you much. Scott 17:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kgf0 Discussion 

message: In the third paragraph of the "Synchrotron radiation beamline" section is the following sentence:
This is enforced by the use of elaborate safety systems with redundant interlocking functions, which make sure that no one is inside the hutch when the radiation is turned on (+ "Search the hutch" safety procedure before to leave the hutch).
The parenthesized phrase is clearly confused, but I'm not sure what it's trying to say so I don't know what to do (besides just delete it). Does anyone have an idea? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange sentence in second section