Sorry, Andy, no technical details. The piece I unearthed yesterday read in its entirety "The second Jameson Special, a six-wheeled torpedo which had its 26.7 litre motor two-stage supercharged, I actually drove within earshot of Dorking. That now languishes in a Dutch museum". It was somewhat peripheral to Ronald "Steady" Barker celebrating the registration of a project car, viz. a Daimler DS420 with a Napier Lion where one would normally expect to find the Lord Mayor. The 2-stage blower suggests a Merlin rather than a Meteor, though I'm pretty sure The Beast had the latter.
There was a much more comprehensive article in either Autocar or Motor when the six-wheeler first broke cover, but alas all my magazines from that era went to the tip many years ago, so nothing about fuel or installation details. I'd have thought an aero engine would have been fairly happy drinking leaded five-star (certainly the assorted 2.0l Pinto-engined Fords which transported Clan Larrington around that time much preferred it to the muck available in the early 90s). The only thing I do remember from the article is that the transmission originally came from a Stoke-on-Trent Corporation bus! Mr Larrington (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found evidence of another Merlin-engined car the other day, this being a Merlin-engined Phantom II which had been acquired incomplete by Nick --86.137.75.132 (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Harley (the bloke who paid five million quid for the ex-Briggs Cunningham Bugatti Royale Kellener saloon. Again no technical details chiz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Larrington (talk • contribs) 13:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Industrial Robot - repeatability and Precision
Thanks Andy. You beat me to it! Robotics1 (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just drastically edited the lot - hope its ok. Robotics1 (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fusible pug
Andy, that ref doesn't work, or am I missing something? --
Old Moonraker (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not a ref, it's a cite to an existing ref. I've tried to clarify and distinguish it a bit. Where we have one ref (i.e. external bit) and we have multiple citations (internal bit on the page) that refer to it, we often use <ref name="foo" /> to merge cites to that one ref. If (as here) we have a longer ref and want cites that are targeted to distinct bits of it, yet obviously share their overall ref, we can use this format.
It does admittedly work better when we're citing multiple random pages from a large book. For here, where it's only a handful of pages in total, we can simply ask the reader to read the whole item. I'd have no problem if you wanted to change it to <ref name="foo" /> form: still two cites to what's now more obviously one ref.
I also need to find the ref I read just last week (can't remember which book though) on solid core plugs and the problems of partial freezing after melting. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The revision using <ref name="Babcock, Steam traction" > works better for me. Thanks.--
Old Moonraker (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sure you are watching the page, but the GA reviewer has asked for a couple of extra refs that I haven't been able to find. Best. --
Old Moonraker (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Quick click for the
Old Moonraker (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Accusations of "making things up"
These are not appropriate in the Wikipedia. You clearly hadn't done any google checkes on the subject, and hadn't even bothered to read the article, which highlighted the differences between the gamblers fallacy and the hot hand fallacy; and then you accuse me of fabricating information, and in the subject line. I am very unimpressed.- Wolfkeeper 16:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are three possibilities (ignoring questions of their causality):
Streaks encourage further streaks ("I'm on a roll today").
Performance on the next shot is independent of the last shot (simple rolls with fair dice)
Streaks discourage further streaks ("My luck has to change soon")
The "hot hand" hypothesis depends on #1. This isn't the same as the gambler's fallacy: both rely on #1, but the sporting version bases its hypothesis on streaks as being indicative of variable performance being at a local peak, which is a more robust basis than "The dice love me today". It's not a great basis - the preceding sample size is too small to be rigorously valid, but it's an "effective, fast and frugal heuristic" according to your single cite.
Gilovich et al. (1985), cited in your ref, favours #2 instead. Gigerenzer & Todd (1999) (also cited by your ref) support #1, as does the overall position of your cite (qualified somewhat by restriciting itself to a longer-timescale team strategy, rather than an individual) - on the basis of adaptive behaviour, self-belief encouraging risk-taking, and risk-taking being itself a good strategy for basketball.
The problem is that you've presented this in the article as "the probability of a streak goes down as the streak continues", which is position #3. I cannot see any supporting references for this position at all, at least not in the basketball context. Yet when challenged to reference it, your response was to cite the same reference that already supports #1!
Maybe your position is that of the reference, but in that case the overly terse wording used at present is far from clear. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations you seem to be incapable of understanding the hot hand fallacy:
"The “hot hand” fallacy was observed by Gilovich, Vallone, and Tversky
(1985), who noted that most people associated with the
game of basketball believe that a player who has just
scored several times in a row is now more likely to
score—because he or she is “hot.” However, when these
authors computed the sequential dependencies between
successive scoring attempts of players, they found that
there was no such dependency; indeed, if anything, players
who have had a run of successful scoring attempts
are somewhat less likely to score next time."
This is nothing at all to do with any of your 3 options.- Wolfkeeper 21:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with your hypothesis is that Gilovich reports, "successive shots in basketball are independent events", i.e. #2 This isn't #1 admittedly (so they discount the fallacy) but nor is it #3, as you're reporting it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please contact me
Hi Andy, I just want to ask personal permission to use one of your images
Email link (left hand column) works. Which image is it BTW ?
If this is an image on Wikipedia (there are very few of these) then it might have copyright issues and is only there under "fair use" (most of my handful of Wikipedia images are scans that are historically significant, but still under some publisher's copyright). If it's on Wikimedia Commons it will be (as is the case for all Commons images) there under
CC-by-sa or a freer licence. In that case you know you can always re-use it, even without asking. Thanks for asking though, I'm always glad when people find a use for these. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Cranes by type