Contents

Talk:X-ray binary

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Astronomical objects C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects. Physics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 22 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pdohrwardt.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should not create types or acronyms with wikilinks to non-existent articles, unless we can at least give a reference to the external literature that defines the type. Otherwise we run the risk of creating an endless network of cross-references to imaginary or redundant classes of objects. Maybe a good test would be to try the acronym, or type words, out on Google, and make sure that we get a serious number of hits? Wwheaton (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should try merge more of the 'types/classifications' of XRBs into one page, otherwise we have a series of stud articles, e.g. supernova lists the 1a,1b, 1c etc. models, that reflect what we currently understand about those objects. Anthony Rushton (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but let's have redirects for the more important subclasses, to the main article? Wwheaton (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For an x-ray binary, for example, might one have accreting mass, both gaseous and even eventually of a liquid core, being drawn off toward a compact object (ss433 x-ray binary?). Might one have a resultant residual solid fused iron core fission reactor? Might it constitute the residual object for an eclipsing x-ray binary? Has it's x-ray profile (from the core?) been largely unaffected? Might radioactivity, versus just an iron core, have a differential effect on x-ray signature? Might this apply to all stars, even our sun, if the outer layers were stripped off? Do all stars have a liquid (fusion) core? Might a white dwarf (misnomer?) just represent the solid iron fission core of, for example, a preceding red giant? A fission core, detectable in infrared, that lasts essentially forever? Fusion, most efficient for a liquid core; and fission turned on, and most suitable, for a solidified core? SRM book at tmmalm.info.66.41.229.140 (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]