Talk:Induced gamma emission

message: The move is done, and I've tracked down and fixed anyone linking to ballotechnics that actually meant IGE (not easy!). I think I may have killed one redir in the process though, but IIRC it was unused anyway (still looking for it).
I have also started the cleanup, changing refs IN the article from ballotechnics to IGE. I am about 1/4 done, but I have to go so feel free to jump in. I have removed a small snippet from the intro for now:
and was originally concerned with ballotechnic nuclear reactions. The term 'ballotechnics' is attributed to Samuel Cohen, an early proponent. The concept is that there are nuclear reaction that produce gamma rays, and no alpha or beta particles. And it is proposed that this is the result of a high-energy nuclear isomer changing into a low-energy nuclear isomer, (i.e. with no change of mass number). Such high-energy isomers would include both spin isomers and shape isomers.
Maury 17:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "what links here" toolbox item is handy for tracking down links to "ballotechnics". A brief look showed cases that were ambiguous (mostly these just look like they just need wording tweaks to clarify that the term was being mis-applied). Thanks for taking the effort to do all of this! --Christopher Thomas 19:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok, looking good. 

message: Well I don't know about you guys, but after basically adding an intro and moving stuff around I think the article actually seems pretty amazingly good now! Maury 17:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also re-written the Ballotechnics article. See what you think. Maury 18:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: Added picture, hopefully worth 1000 words, as the saying goes. It is an excellent point attempting to contrast time-reversed processes as recommended above, but this illustration shows the complications that must be addressed. I am hoping the illustration, drawn just for this article will make the job easier. Let's see....
--Drac2000 20:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustration

message: * Don't use the condensed notation. Use A+B arrow C+D, this will aid in understanding when non-experts read this.
::Only needs to be done once, to introduce the shorter notation.
::The graphic looks great, its exactly what was needed.
::The intro still lists five elements, and indium is not one of them. A sentence should be added to explain why indium is not one of the five.  The intro should also include mention of the applications, singling out the high-energy density battery, and the gamma ray laser. The intro should also mention the controversy. This probably means that the technical content in the current intro gets moved to a section called "technical overview". linas 22:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pending concerns

message: Info:
this image: :Image:HafniumMetalUSGOV.jpg isn't hafnium. It look similar to germanium. I think it was a confusion from the author. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  false picture 

message: This isomer of platinum is not listed in the element's article, nor could I find any credible source for it. Isomers of platinum are 193m, 185m and 197m. Please check...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnbc (talk • contribs) 13:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platinum-186m does not exist...