Talk:Radio-quiet neutron star

Theories

In accreting neutron stars maybe the 2nd most powerful radio emissions are caused by a positron-electron jet from the star blasting thru outer material such as an accretion disk or cloud (the most powerful radio emission probably is being in line with the poles). The radio quiet runaway stars listed in the article don't have accretion material and thats probably why they are radio quiet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.208.238 (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

That would mean that any radio pulsar would need to be accreting, wouldn't it? Well, that's apparently not the case. --Mtu (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you can have a jet without accretion. I modified the above statement slightly too. I think the 2nd most intense radio emissions (>>GHz) are probably caused by jet positrons and electrons impacting protons and higher number nuclei. What is needed is a jet. Without a jet you don't get these intense radio emissions.

Geminga?

Geminga is a well-established pulsar - it's only radio-quiet above a certain frequency. Should it really be in the list? --182.239.130.177 (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing the reference that you give, I concur. The main article for Geminga still claims it to be radio-quiet, but doesn't cite sources more recent than 1992, so your reference from 1998 appears to obsolete that. I'll remove Geminga here and try to fix the main article with your reference. Thank you for bringing this up! --Mtu (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Old discussion

The last paragraph is oddly oblique. Instead of describing a radio-quiet neutron star, it describes a pulsar. The reader is left wondering what sort of relationship between axis of rotation and magnetic poles would result in "pulsars which do not pulse in our direction." The only configurations I can imagine that would not appear as a pulse to us are, first, magnetic and rotational poles coincident and the axis at right angles to our line of sight; and, second, magnetic poles at right angles to the rotational axis (i.e., lying somewhere on the equator) and the rotational axis aligned along our line of sight. But then, I'm not an astronomer and that's why I'm looking it up in Wiki in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.125.95 (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned this up a little bit, nothing too crazy. Removed some self-referential and redundant links. Davepetr 04:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"point"? or "pulse"? in our direction

I think its better to say: "radio-quiet neutron stars may simply be pulsars which do not POINT in our direction" then "radio-quiet neutron stars may simply be from pulsars which do not PULSE in our direction".

I'm content to leave it the way it is now but don't understand why some think PULSE is a more accurate word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.208.238 (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)