This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This article appears to be mainly about pulsars in general, rather than rotation-powered pulsars. If there is enough information that is specific rotation-powered pulsars, it should remain here, but if, as appears to be the case, there isn't much more than a paragraph of such, I think it should be merged with Pulsar. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.230.255 ( talk) on 01:02, 8 April 2006
This page needs to be merged with pulsar and useful portions transferred to the merged page. I have read dozens of papers on pulsars and have never seen the term "Rotation-powered pulsar". The danger is that the bigger article on pulsars will be missed because this one is found. That article covers the distinctions between various types of pulsars. Trojancowboy ( talk) 22:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Pulsar redirects here. That doesn't seem useful. This page is for discussing this article, not Pulsar. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.230.255 ( talk) on 01:02, 8 April 2006
I know this article still needs lots of work. But I think is an improvement over the previous version.
Do pulsars send out a "beam" or a "sheet" of radiation? --AxelBoldt
I'm not completely sure what you mean. If you integrate over several rotations, certainly you will have something like a conical sheet of radiation (or more like a spiral on a conic sheet). Now, if you are asking how large in latitude the emission region is, i'm not sure, as I have not read recent papers on pulsar models. Classic textbooks assume a conical beam. --AN
Yes, I should have been more precise; I meant the latitude size of the emission region. Also, is the emission region at or near the magnetic pole? --Axel
I have heard that the source of the magnetic field of the pulsar is the spinning of the object. Let me expose my ignorance by asking how a magnetic field can be produced from a star compsed of neutral matter since pulsars are basically a flavor of neutron stars. -- Qaz
Actually, about 1 in 7 nucleons is a proton and has an electron to go "with it" somewhere. The Fermi level is, after all, finite and it can't push all the electrons down into the protons to make neutrons (and neutrinos) -- Pdn 21:36, Feb 20, 2005 UTC
I think there needs to be some reorganization. Possibly, most of the material on this page could be moved to a page titled Radio pulsar. In modern astrophysics usage, there are several different kinds of pulsars, distinguished by their energy source. Spin-powered pulsars (commonly, though less correctly called radio pulsars) are the objects found by Hewish and Bell: neutron stars that are tapping their rotational kinetic energy to power the observed electromagnetic pulses, which are mostly observed in the radio. A second kind of pulsar, found a few years later, is the accretion-powered pulsar (usually called x-ray pulsars). These are neutron stars that are accreting material from companion stars. When the material is channeled onto the surface along the magnetic field it produces hot spots that create the observed pulses when the neutron star rotates. Although both kinds of pulsars are neutron stars, the physics is very different. Finally, magnetars are pulsars powered by ultra-strong magnetic fields trapped in young neutron stars.
It might be possible to write a single entry on pulsars that covers all of these kinds of objects. But I think it would be cleaner to move and slightly rewrite this one, then add two more to cover x-ray pulsars and magnetars. Finally, the pulsar page could get a brief summary and disambiguation pointers to the other pages. If nobody objects or does their own reorganization, I'll give it a try when I get time.
-- Thorsett 06:36, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Given the discussion of a developing pulsar-based standard of time measurement at Terrestrial Time, and its link to pulsar, oughtn't there be some discussion of this developing standard in the pulsar article? Arkuat 08:35, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
The page is currently somewhat misleading in its categorization: it suggests that X-ray pulsars and rotation-powered pulsars are non-overlapping categories, which is contradicted both by reality and the article at rotation-powered pulsar. -- Andrew 20:12, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think moving it si the right idea. X-ray pulsars really are a category, but they're not the same category as Accretion-powered pulsars. So I think putting a stub at accretion-powered pulsar is a good idea, to go with the stub for x-ray pulsar. We should, I suppose, also have a stub for radio pulsar. (I say this because a number of articles reference X-ray pulsar with its current meaning.
Another possibility would be to X-ray pulsar into pulsar, with care. -- Andrew 05:25, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
The following text was added by User:Rnt20 and subsequently removed by me:
This is inaccurate. Martin Ryle, co-recipient that year, was given the prize for his role in developing interferometry (aperture synthesis in particular). The text pertaining to Antony Hewish does not mention interferometry at all [1]. The reason for the prize was "for his decisive role in the discovery of pulsars" [2]. Also it was not "his telescope", it was MRAO's telescope. If you want to get nit picky, he designed it and was in charge of it but the hard work of building it was shared by several members of the group including Bell, and Bell was responsible for day to day operations and data analysis, including the initial discovery of the pulsar. Perhaps I am being oversensitive but I am also worried that this edit was an attempt to push the POV that Hewish deserved the prize while Bell didn't. -- Rkundalini 19:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm a bit annoyed that someone took out "to say the least" as trite, because it's my recollection that the regularity was just a few blips followed by a long loss due to scintillation; thus it was true genius to "connect the dots" (or blips) over the missing periods. So I put in "not at all obvious" - hope that's not too trite. -- Pdn 21:40, Feb 20, 2005 UTC
I think that is is worth restoring the explanation I had (or something more accurate if I was sloppy) about interstellar scintillation's having made it hard to recognise the regularity of the pulses (at least across big gaps). That's where Jocelyn Bell's real genius and persistence came in, I think. It's important as a historical note, and also to encourage young people to think (and observe!) independently.
Also I believe that the X-ray pulsars are less regular, no? If so, point that out, please. Also they are not subject to scintillation - perhaps worth mentioning.
Otherwise, nice reorganization. One can't let one article get too long.
Pdn 21:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The article mentions that glitching may be related to a superconducting iterior. I'd thought that these models were for a superfluid interior? -- Christopher Thomas 07:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Nobel Prize again: It's not correct that Hulse & Taylor's was the 2nd astronomical Nobel prize. Penzias & Wilson (1978) were radio astronomers (discovery of CMB) and Chandrasekhar and Fowler (1983) got theirs for astronomy. And although Ryle & Hewish are normally cited as the first astronomy Nobellists, arguably Alfvén (1969) got his for his astrophysical contributions (counting solar-terrestrial physics as a branch of astrophysics). -- -- 86.130.159.86 00:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All pulsar names must start with either B or J. It is not sufficient to write PSR 1913+16. The correct name is PSR B1913+16. There are several articles on specific pulsars that need to be fixed. 137.22.224.98 21:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Generally, if it's a B1950 then it's PSR xxxx+/-yy while if it's a J2000, then it's PSR xxxx+-yyyy... 70.55.84.133 12:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)