Talk:High-g training

Untitled

I added ETC as a US Manufacturer of centrifuges. It has not appeared as "posted" yet. Can you kindly advise? DAverell DAverell (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

what is the "AGSM"? --98.246.60.196 (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on High-G training. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070802191447/http://www.amtiusa.com/frst_ed/digpg16.htm to http://www.amtiusa.com/frst_ed/digpg16.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520061140/http://roland.lerc.nasa.gov/~dglover/dictionary//tables/table11.html to http://roland.lerc.nasa.gov/~dglover/dictionary/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Excessively strong claim

The middle section currently ends "Early experiments showed that untrained humans were able to tolerate 17 g eyeballs-in (compared to 12 g eyeballs-out) for several minutes without loss of consciousness or apparent long-term harm.[3]"

But reviewing the source doesn't appear to support that claim at all. It says that pilots tolerated 6 g for several minutes; the 12-17g experiments measure tolerance time in seconds, with a single result of 12g for 0.72 minutes specifically called out as unusually good and as the only concrete figure reported. I'm not an expert, so can someone more qualified with the literature check and rewrite this? yes

Tynam (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

G/g distinction: Is it Capital G or lowercase g—if it varies, what are the rules?

G/g distinction: Is it Capital G or lowercase g—if it varies, what are the rules?

— ♞ Aeröwyn 19:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeröwyn (talk • contribs)

It should be a lower-case g. The article should be edited appropriately and it should be moved to High-g training. WP Ludicer (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I've changed it in the article per the move discussion below; however I'm still not sure in which cases g should be in italics. 9³ (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 11 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

---

High-G training → High-g training – g is always lowercase even at the start of sentences as per consensus at g-force, consistent with other pages such as g-LOC and g-suit. G should also be decapitalised in the article if move goes through. 9³ (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Weak because I do think it makes sense to have consistency with g-force, but usage in reliable sources appears to be pretty overwhelmingly in favor of the current name.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME based on Google Ngrams. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.