lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:GBU-10 Paveway II

message: To date (August 2007), the US has not contracted for, developed nor purchased a GPS version of the GBU-10. References removed for accuracy.  Intrudermax 22:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, GPS-guided versions of the bomb have been developed by both Raytheon and Lockheed, and non-US users have purchased them.  Since they are a development of the actual GBU-10, mention of them belongs in this article. Phaid (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

message: The image in this article, of a GBU-10 being dropped onto a boat from a B-1B Lancer, is actually the newer GBU-24 Paveway III 2,000 lb bomb, not a GBU-10 Paveway II 2,000 lb bomb. Somebody should probably change that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.167.197 (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image
Talk:Born–Huang approximation

message: There are some serious problems with this page. 
First, if we intend with "Born-Huang approximation" the adiabatic approximation (i.e., nuclei moving in the potential given by the clamped nuclei hamiltonian + adiabatic correction, aka Born-Oppenheimer diagonal correction) then it does not make any sense to say that it include "part of the non-adiabatic effects" (it doesn't) nor that it is "rarely used to account for non-adiabatic effects" (it's can't). Maybe what was intend was the Born-Huang approach to the separation of motions of the nuclei. 
Second, the fact that the BO and BH energies bracket the real energy is always always USELESS. It isn't a "very efficient way to validate the BO approx." as it is states in the article! This is because in almost all cases (i.e.: all cases a part from 2-3 electron systems) one only cares about relative energies, and for these there is no variational principle.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by L0rents (talk • contribs) 23:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

message: Second sentence "It takes into account diagonal nonadiabatic effects in the electronic Hamiltonian than the Born–Oppenheimer approximation."  is 'broken' English.  Since I do not know what author meant to say, I can not correct it.
I suspect s/he may have meant "compared with" but mistakenly used "than".  If so, it would be better, imho, to state:
"It takes into account diagonal nonadiabatic effects in the electronic Hamiltonian while the Born–Oppenheimer approximation does not."72.172.1.250 (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is not complete/correct English - Edit required 
Talk:Emblem of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic

message: The article states that the slogan was: "Бүтүн ватанрин пролетарлары, бирлешин! In today's Latin script of the language, it would read Bütün vatanrin proletaları, birleşin!"  This is totally wrong, because there is no word "vatanrin" in the Azerbaijani language. I am not even talking about spelling errors in other words. The correct slogan was "Bütün ölkələrin proletarları, birləşin!". I am going to change it accordingly 193.164.229.102 11:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The slogan is wrong
Talk:Flux linkage

message: In a multi layered coil wrapped around a ferromagnetic core, is all the flux through the core linked to all the layers of coil equally or does the flux decrease for the outer layers?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecoolsundar (talk • contribs) 08:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Outer (towards the ends) turns of a single-layer solenoid coil will link less flux than inner turns.  The difference will be negligible with typical cores, probably ~1:10K or even as little as ~1:1M, depending on the core material.  Even with an "air" core, the difference will still be pretty small for a tight solenoid. In a multi-layered coil, an outer (towards the larger radius) turn will link all the flux linked by an underlying inner turn, and then some -- i.e. outer (towards the larger radius) layers will tend to link more flux than inner layers.
Flux can be understood if it is heard in an analog synth instrument that has a VCF with the FLUX filtering the patch. Synth players are manipulating voltage by using principles of flux to create resistance in how waves perform with a delayed pulse that comes back on itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiFikiFool (talk • contribs) 17:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Isenthalpic process

message: "Process is isenthalpic if there is no transfer of heat to (or from) the surroundings and no work done on (or by) the surroundings."
Which is trivially false. 
So, I reverted to the previous version. I understand that you can have isenthalpic processes under certain circumstances. But then those circumstances should be mentioned first, and then you can say that in such and such a setting the process is isenthalpic.
Count Iblis (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flawed statement 

message: Are endoenthalpic and exoenthalpic the correct terms to describe situations of decreasing and increasing enthalpy? Jeff Knaggs (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Processes that are not isenthalpic
Talk:GAU-13

message: Is there a reliable source to back the claim of 3600 ft/s? AFAIK, the muzzle v used to be around 3100 with the GAU-8 and the very same ammo. That would mean a ~30% increase in kinetic energy, with the same propellant. Is that at all possible? 217.251.166.67 (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muzzle v plus other issue 

message: I see the 7.62 WP round twice in a row:
Left column - Right column - Tooltip
7.62x54mm - GshG-7.62 - GShG-7.62 machine gun
7.62x54mm - Slostin - Slostin machine gun
That is, the tooltips look consistent with the entries, but AFAIK, these two entries should be in the same row. Or shouldnt they? 217.251.166.67 (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  List inside list: Soviet/Russia inside Modern Gatling guns 

message: "Unlike the GAU-8, however, it is pneumatically driven"
Hey, I thought the GAU-8 was pneumatically driven. This needs clarifying. --217.209.145.79 (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivation
Talk:Electromagnetic mass

message: What is the status of the concept in the science of today?--213.233.84.165 (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Charged extended particles can experience self-oscillatory dynamics as a result of classical electrodynamic self-interactions \cite{}. This trembling motion has a frequency that is closely related to the zitterbewegung frequency appearing in Dirac's equation. The mechanism producing these fluctuations arises because some parts of an accelerated charged corpuscle emit electromagnetic perturbations that can affect another part of the body, producing self-forces. Using the Liénard-Wiechert potential as solutions to Maxwell's equations with sources, it can be shown that these forces can be described in terms of state-dependent delay differential equations, which display limit cycle behavior. Therefore, the principle of inertia, as appearing in Newton's first law, would only hold on average, since uniform motion can become unstable through a process of symmetry breaking of the Lorentz group. Alvaro12Lopez (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status today
Talk:Gabriel (missile)

message: Regarding the use of Israel Aircraft Industries in the prior history of the article, I have updated it to reflect Israel Aerospace Industries instead as it seems to be the correct organization. Judicatus | Talk 10:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel Aerospace Industries 

message: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/12/finnish-navy-lifts-veil-on-its-future-anti-ship-missile-the-gabriel-v/
BlueD954 (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info on Gabriel V 

message: as reported here http://www.navypedia.org/ships/israel/isr_cf_hetz.htm and in other places  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.56.208.95 (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israelian Saar 4.5 use the Gabriel 

message: There's no any evidence that Israel defeated the Egyptian navy or achieved naval supremacy in this. It's against common sense and against that war final results. Yassermuhammad84 (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yum Kipur war, Israeli naval supremacy 

message: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/04/iai-and-thales-join-forces-to-offer-sea-serpent-anti-ship-missile-to-the-royal-navy/
Related?
BlueD954 (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related 

message: hi, the user 2A01:E0A:181:4E10:A4A7:7C35:4DDF:25E3 He removed Chile and another country without reasons or evidence, so this intervention can be classified as Vandalism, I request that he be prohibited from editing the page.I also request the admin to add Chile as the operator of the Gabriel MK2/MK5 missile since these are in service on the Saar 4 boats in service with the Chilean navy. Darknessofhumanity (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malicious edit by anonymous user 2A01:E0A:181:4E10:A4A7:7C35:4DDF:25E3
Talk:Gun truck

message: Just to register my view, I've just here via African military innovation and change. I believe the two articles should not be merged, because the gun truck is essentially a expedient utilised by formed military forces when temporarily lacking required equipment, and the technical is an ad-hoc thing created by irregular forces. I believe the two concepts are separate enought to warrant separate articles. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 01:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitary break

message: the carriage of naval and garrison guns from the 17-19th century is also called a gun truck: 
http://www.rnmuseumshop.co.uk/acatalog/info_199.html
This article should be rightfully called "Armored Vehicles" or "Fighting Vehicles", but not "Gun Trucks" (except if you want to introduce Gun_truck_(disambiguation)). Seegras (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The other Gun Truck 

message: It wasn't just the SAS that used armed trucks in the Western Desert during World War II - look at all the pictures in the article on the Long Range Desert Group. 24.61.4.237 (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  LRDG 
Talk:Hawkins grenade

message: The stated dimensions (about 150 millimetres (5.9 in) and approximately 0.45 kilograms (0.99 lb)) look as though they have been converted from original imperial units to metric - and then rounded off and converted back again. That the device was British, also suggest that these quantities would be defined in imperial units. If this is the case, then (WP:UNITS) it would make more sense to give them as  -->    --> . --catslash (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units? 

message: According to this site there are different types of fillings used other than Ammatol and TNT. https://www.lexpev.nl/minesandcharges/europe/unitedkingdom/no75hawkinsmine.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwitchyCarlos (talk • contribs) 16:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different fillings
Talk:Pip Pyle

message: :Anyone know the cause of death? At 56, he wasn't really that old... heart attack maybe?--HisSpaceResearch 21:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a message from Richard Sinclair, but obviously I can't disclose. I will apply for permission.Dr. Who 21:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, OK...--HisSpaceResearch 03:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:JP233

message: 26 kilograms does not equal 75 pounds.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.209.191 (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  weight 

message: Added a link to the Panavia Tornado in the image description.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.190.234 (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture description 

message: Tried to remove this a few times but there appears to be some resistant, we dont normally categorise weapons by the aircraft that carry them, I cant see why JP233 should be different. MilborneOne (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note I have raised this at the project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#JP233 for further opinions, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: Panavia Tornado
Talk:Delta baryon

message: Please give input at Talk:Hadron#Hadron overhaul. Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hadron overhaul 

message: Why are Delta-1 and Delta-0 unstable if uud and udd respectively are their constituents? Aren't they just protons and neutrons? After all, the constituents are identical, how are they different? 32ieww (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they're excited forms of the nucleons. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decay 

message: Why are there no stable uuu or ddd baryons? XinaNicole (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they all decay via strong interactions (e.g. Δ++ → p+ + π+). See Decay modes, on the 5th page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delta++ and Delta- 

message: Because \Delta^{2+} looks pretty straightforward given p+ and u+. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you're asking here. There is a Delta++... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that there does that particle exist or not, but that why isn't it \Delta^{2+} instead of \Delta^{++}  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfa-ketosav (talk • contribs) 20:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not <math>\Delta^{2+}</math>? 

message: Nowhere is it mentioned that the \Delta^- has never been observed in experiments.
Especially for the table, there should at least be a note. Frogjg2003 (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  <math>\Delta^-</math> not observed
Talk:Limbo (weapon)

message: The Limbo ships had a Metadyne room.  In the Rothesay class this was between the two mortar magazines on 3 Deck.  Photos from HMS Plymouth after modernization show just the one set remaining.  I am under the impression the Metadyne amplifiers should have looked like big DC motor / generators, but can't see anything fitting that description in those photos, just rack and panel mounted equipment.
Metadyne is basically a DC amplifier.  A DC constant speed motor drives a DC generator (or two or three) on the same shaft.  The signal to be amplified is applied as a current to the field of the generator(s), and so the output is greatly amplified from the armature of the generators.  Because the current can be reversed through the controlling field, the output will also be reversed. Thus perfect for controlling large reversible DC motors.
This type of control circuit was used in the E4 auto-pilot used in C-130 aircraft for many years, although the flight surfaces weren't moved directly by electric motors, but they acted as hydraulic servos.  They weren't referred to as Metadynes, rather as channel amplifiers I believe.
The whole arrangement would have included range and bearing for the target, corrected for roll and pitch of the ship, therefore some sort of analogue computer, similar to what they used in the C-130 auto-pilot.  Valves and synchros.  I only know this because about 10 years ago I rescued an old C-130 auto-pilot from the tip and a manual from the archives, and with much trepidation applied 115V 400Hz to it after the components had been on the shelf for many many years.  It all worked perfectly.  The aircraft system of course computed for roll and pitch as well, so probably not too dissimilar, if on a rather lighter scale.  Only difference might be the Limbo mounting needed almost instant response to roll to keep the weapon on track, whereas the aircraft system was deliberately designed to give rather more gentle responses, depending on rate of roll, position of control surfaces, amount of roll etc...., doesn't pay to rip the wings off.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.115.234.1 (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metadyne drive 

message: The method of reloading is not mentioned.  I presume there was a magazine of 16 or 17 depth charges immediately below each barrel, and the mortar tubes needed to be moved perpendicular to the deck while loading took place.   Can anyone please provide further information? FreeFlow99 (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reloading 

message: There is no information here about the depth charges (diameter and length), no picture, no information about the explosive used, how the depth setting could be changed just before firing, or by what means they were propelled. It would be really nice if this could be added by someone with the knowledge (and ideally know of references). FreeFlow99 (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The depth charges
Talk:M102 howitzer

message: The article has the following specification.
:Weight: 1.6 tons (4.7 t)
US Army source site Army.mil fact file gives a weight of 3004 lbs which is US 1.5 short tons (1.4 t) metric. Guess that we all have to take a look at details on Wiki articles to see if they make any sense. --TGC55 (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: I've never heard this term used in general for military transportation.
I suspect that the term should be 'sling loaded,' most likely with a Westland Wessex class helo.
I'll try to find more specific information, unless someone has it to hand already.
ck
DocKrin (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Under Slung?

message: Muzzle brakes did seem to be dispensed with at some point, but they did make it to Vietnam.--172.192.9.26 (talk) 08:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muzzle Brakes
Talk:Mark 46 torpedo

message: The appropriate infobox is  -MBK004 02:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox?

message: Given that the Mark 46 is being retired from US Navy service in 2015, I find it highly unlikely that it has been universally retired (as of 11/26/2015).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorwayStorm (talk • contribs) 18:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operators Map 

message: What about Poland, with its "Oliver Hazard Perry" class frigates? Those have torpedo tubes, and ASROC missiles, and Seahawk helicopters that carry Mk-46s. They also have SM-1MR and Harpoon missiles, but these and the ASROCS are all fired by the one launcher from a 40-missile magazine.47.215.180.7 (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Poland? 

message: Where did "remained in service until 2015" come from? It's not in the cited source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  in service until 2015?
Talk:Mark 82 bomb

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 
Talk:Cauchy–Born rule

message: I just removed the link Quasiconvexity and its applications, since this is a link to a 2002 conference, which doesn't appear to have any actual material on Quasiconvexity, let alone the Cauchy-Born rule. --Joth (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed link
Talk:Mark 50 torpedo

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: It would seem unlikely that the products of the SF6 + Li reaction are directed through a heat exchanger to boil a working fluid and the working fluid is condensed.  More likely that the SF6 + Li generates a very hot gas which is mixed with seawater and the resultant cooler gas goes through a turbine or other engine and is dumped overboard, imho.  Jim1138 (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed Rankine cycle 
Talk:Mk 2 grenade

message: The article states the grooves and raised sections don't aid fragmentation.  This seems unintuitive and it isn't cited.  Does anyone know if this is correct?  It seems that the purpose of those components may well be to increase the ability to grip the device, but it seems like the presence of weaker sections of the grenade's shell would have to contribute to fragmentation.  Is it possible that someone mixed up the purpose of the grooves or their neccesity for adequate fragmentation with their effect on fragmentation?   I could imagine a source saying the prior two (not for fragmentation and not needed for fragmentation) but the later one sounds suspect (doesn't aid fragmentation).  Wouldn't a shell without grooves have more structural integrity and therefore fragment into larger pieces, thereby rendering the statement in the article incorrect?  Hopefully a source can be found.--Δζ (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've read that, whether intended or not, the external grooves of this sort were found not to aid significantly in the fragmentation of the grenade body while internal grooves were, thus you see a later designs like the M26. One source for this would be Ian Hogg's book on World War II infantry weapons. He mentions this, I believe, in the introduction to the grenades section of the book. The whole issue of the grooves being there to help soldiers grip the grenade does strike me as something of an ex post facto justification for them being there, as most modern defensive grenades seem to have no need for such grooves. So, to belabor my point even further, when designed I think people thought that the grooves would help the fragmentation of the grenade, but later studies revealed that they did not.--172.190.50.63 (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grooves and raised sections don't  aid fragmentation? 

message: According to weapons expert Kevin Dockery: '...the pineapple grenade’s inventor, William Mills from the United Kingdom, picked the fruit shape for ease of gripping. “His intention for those serrations was so that it wouldn’t slip out your hand in a muddy trench.” '  
The Myth Behind the Classic Pineapple Grenade
Cornell737 (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designed to improve grip 

message: Reading the article just now I noticed that sometimes the article used "Mk.2" and sometimes it was "Mk 2".  About half and half, so I made the call and  decided the whole article should be standardized to "Mk 2" (note space)Jonny Quick (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mk.2 to Mk 2
Talk:Northover Projector

message: Did the Northover Projector really need a special version of the SIPs grenade? I have quite a bit of original documentation on the projector, but there is no mention of special amunition. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special version of the SIPs grenade? 

message: The text of the article mentions more than once that the weapon was mounted on a "tripod"... yet a tripod has three legs, by definition, and every picture of the Northover Projector shows it with four. Should we change it to the more cumbersome but more accurate "four-legged base" or something?
Singe onion (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A four-legged tripod?