Talk:Ion-pulse modulation stabilizer
Ion pulse synchronisation paper reference
Concerning this revision and its subsequent revert: I do not feel it is link-farming. I do think that if it is included, the heading should be ‘References’ rather than ‘Notes’. However, I don’t see a very strong connection between the item and the research. The latter looks definitely obsolete and seems fairly inconsequential. It is also somewhat obscure: Google Scholar only found one other paper citing this one. The only two connections I see are that both mention pulsed ion beams and that the toy jet pack has a reference that has a reference to the year 1953, while the paper is from either 1951 or 1954 (I think the Springer website itself is confused about that). Personally, I’d like to see stronger evidence that this paper is a source of the item description before it is included on the page, but I disagree with the exact reason given for the revert, especially considering that the paper’s authors should be either dead or at least safely retired by now. ;-) --Xyzzyn 02:16, 26 November 2011 (CET)
- i'm glad someone can claim to have read and understood the cited page enough to decry the link. i'm unhappy that my perhaps too dry and admittedly weak attempt at humour was missed, though. i looked at the article. my head hurt. i took a judgement call. none of the kol staff are physicists. skully's a liberal arts major. the rarity of ion pulse modulation suggests that this could be a source. however, how? did it win a prize for impenetrable gobbledeygook and jargonese? how famous is it? --Evilkolbot 10:57, 26 November 2011 (CET)
- Sorry to have missed the joke, but after the deluge of spam-related interventions, I had assumed you were serious. The topic is completely outside my field, but it isn’t too difficult to glean some basics through common sense. Ion pulse modulation does not appear to be rare, except for the word combination itself. The paper describes two ways of building something that is normally fairly simple, but as part of a machine which is difficult to modify. (High voltages and strong EM fields, and such.) I’m sure it was useful in its time; however, it is neither famous nor a prize winner. In its defence, it is less badly written than quite a lot of modern research, and might not be so confusing if it wasn’t about 1950s electronics in the context of particle accelerators. As for the KoL item, we probably should assume that it was supposed to be completely fictional, until there is evidence to the contrary. --Xyzzyn 16:41, 26 November 2011 (CET)
