# Talk:Fuse

## "Useful" fuses

There's a bit of a contradiction on this page now -- it says that fuses "hopefully" create something as they burn, but then it goes on to say that useful fuses are usually clean. I don't really know much about what makes a fuse "useful", but it seems as though one or the other of these comments should be removed or altered in some way. Nathaniel 22:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you're right about that; let's say that they hopefully create something clean. Otherwise they'd probably be puffer trains. Speaking of clean, shouldn't we maybe open up a page on "vanishers" or "instant vanishers?" Lifelines used to have them.

## Lightspeed wire

I don't think that Lightspeed wire should be considered a fuse, but rather a group of wicks or fuses that allow non-destructive burning at the speed of light. The reason for this is that 'lightspeed wire' does not define the signal that travels along it (many lightspeed signals exist with various periods and sizes, so it is inappropriate to say that a lightspeed wire has a period of 4).
~Sokwe 18:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What you say makes sense, but "lightspeed wire" was already on the very first version of the "fuse" page. Actually, I don't think "fuse" is very well defined - look at how the "wick" and "fuse" pages refer back and forth to each other. A wick is vaguely something that is one dimensional, although it can be fat and/or wander around considerably. A fuse seems to be what you get when a wick decomposes, for whatever reason.
Almost any orthogonal shift periodic configuration could qualify as a wick, especially if it were bounded in one dimension, and could be called a "fuse" if it were not static, even if it didn't desompose. That is apparently how "lightspeed wire" got onto the list; I didn't check "period 4" yet because I am still working on the page. Although the number of examples on this explicatory page should be limited, most of the examples cited were "makers" and elsewhere someone suggested that those all be consolidated somewhere. There are already too many pages exploring variations on a simple theme, although "one page per pattern" permits elaborating the discovery history of who and when and citing other relevant statistics.
The objection certainly deserves a comment, but wouldn't an instance or two be enlightening? ~H. V. McIntosh

## Massive merging?

Now that the ancient examples of pure glider generator have been merged to the page detailing the concept, I start to think about the fuses. The fuses were of historical interest as well, and are now considered unimportant with few exceptions (the reburnable ones). Should we merge the pages like "XXX maker" into this article? GUYTU6J (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against this. - AwesoMan3000 (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)