User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2010 October

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Barry Andrews (musician). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Rapido (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Radio Centraal, you may be blocked from editing. Rapido (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andy Dingley. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at

One on-line dictionary, one mention in a book hardly makes it notable, although I accept that the reason for deletion may not have been correct. There is nothing significant that is not in Kappa, so perhaps a redirect to that might put it more in context? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (if there's anything in addition) and redirect to Kappa (folklore)#Shirikodama would seem reasonable.

Checking my books on Japanese folklore, I do find several mentions of the term, but only ever in the context of Kappa. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to research further before making such comments. The picture of the 'sherman' is that of a

EDIT: Come to think of it, why are you telling me this after all that's on YOUR talk page? what...3+ disruptive edits? pfff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdasmiffking (talk • contribs) 18:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regards.

Willdasmiffking (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Built in the USA.

British Tank

Ah, poor old Rapido - such a sense of paranoia.

Sherman Fireflies just aren't British though. US designed, US built, with a British gun bolted on afterwards. You can call a bomber a "Washington", but it's still a Boeing. What's wrong with a Cromwell? Nice clean lines, shows all the parts of "tankness" very clearly. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andy. With reference to your revert of my

The lede needs adjusting to take account of the varying type of scowles. Would you like to do it, or should I? Obscurasky (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead. I don't know what their relative incidence is, but the labyrinthine form is certainly there, distinctive and at the best known sites, so the term shouldn't be dropped entirely. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Feel free to tweak if you're not happy with it. Obscurasky (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andy Dingley. You have new messages at Themeparkgc's talk page.
Message added 03:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Did I detect a hint of

If you want to use TCNSV in the manner you've been doing, don't tag it as a dopp, tag it as an alternate acct, as I do with User:Purplebackpackonthetrail. But remember that if you use an alternate account it can't even have the perception of good hand/bad hand; that was what I believe Andy was reacting to. And Andy, this TeleNasal guy started out making trouble for me on Simple WP, then started making a few similar edits here. One thing he's been trying to do is rename a file I created, even though I'm reasonably certain its violates no conventions (his main motivation seems to be opposition to me). Probably with all the mistaggings and warnings about them, along with the personal nature of some of his edits, we could (and perhaps should) report him to ANI Purplebackpack89 07:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NaSpVe :| 07:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

It can only be used that way if it is tagged as a legit. alt. acct., not as a doppleganger. See the difference between how User:Purplebackpackonthetrail and User:Purplebackpack69 are tagged, and what contributions they have made. Also, don't blame me for all the trouble other editors on both Wikipedias have had with your edits. Purplebackpack89 15:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read

WP:BEFORE

before your deletion attempts, particularly ones on well-known cars of the 1960s, such as the Lotuses. It is ridiculous to even think of these as not passing notability, let alone speedy, even if they need work in their current state. We do not delete things that we can fix by editing. You need to learn this.

Your talk page is a car crash. A stream of editors pointing out bad deletion calls. Do you think they're all wrong, or that there's some plot against you by the cabal? Or just maybe you're making a whole load of really bad deletion requests, such that it's obvious to a bunch of other editors and you really need to sharpen up your game. Tagging anything and everything for deletion, even if you cling to some supposed policy-based reason for doing so, is not a helpful contribution, even when you're an editor who has no more positive contribution to offer.

As to the sockpuppetry, then I don't care what you call it.

WP:COMPETENCE, but you need to cut it out. What you're actually doing (as noted above) is a clear case of good hand / bad hand, so that one account gets to dodge the flak for what the other is doing. Not acceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

"Clear case"? As I've pointed out before, the discussion for the new account is

NaSpVe :| 11:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sorry, I'd assumed that you were keeping one account just for your trail of bad deletions, when actually you're happy to do them even-handedly from whichever of your accounts is closest in the drawer. The convenient cut-away for trailing your talk page back to an actual edit log is just a happy piece of camouflage for you. Either way, this doesn't fix bad edits. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the deletion concerns, I already made many calls on

NaSpVe :| 11:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:SPAM? So explain why you think this needs to be speedied. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for Ányos Jedlik who invented it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.185.181 (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might have noticed that there's a dispute at Talk:Coandă-1910 about whether the aircraft was the first jet. The article is now locked because of edit warring. I see you have been active on the page in the past, so could you jump in again and comment?

I have a sandbox version going at Talk:Coandă-1910/Binksternet, perhaps you can give your opinion on that. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for coming up in the middle of your discussion, but I could not resist to comment. I don't consider at all anything funny at Coanda-1910. And I suppose I'm not the only one, but anybody who cares about Wikipedia in general. The aviation museum in Bucharest did laugh at when I told them to have a look in the English Wikipedia articles about Coanda. Their answer was that Wikipedia is not considered as source for anything as it is completely written by amateurs with their personal views. Andy if you are still interested in this topic please check the discussion in the WP:RSN too.--Lsorin (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've avoided this deliberately, as I really just don't have the time at present.

There seem to be two legit problems, but neither is being handled well, hence the edit war.

• Just what was this thing? It appears to have had a piston engine and an enclosed fan. Did it also burn fuel in a duct? There isn't a shred of credible evidence to support this. There is strong circumstantial evidence (the "pilot cooker" problem) against it.
• Did it fly? I believe we know the answer to this. Hopping isn't flying. Even though period evidence for a hop is scant and there's a view from the 1950s that Coanda was embroidering, it's not unusual for an unworkable aircraft of 1910 to manage to hop off the ground in a manner capable of breaking teeth and not much else.

Once we know the technical details, the rest should be a copywriting exercise for some credible, neutral WP-experienced editor to word it in a defensible manner (i.e. "jet propulsion" is OK, "jet engine" isn't). Then indef blocks and public floggings for anyone who argues.tracted

I'm quite impressed by Talk:Coandă-1910/Binksternet. There's clearly a lot of research in there. It's a very good example of writing from contradictory sources.

I'd be very impressed indeed, if only it didn't support the gas turbine link in the opening paragraph. A gas turbine is a pair (usually) of rotating elements with sequential gasflow between them and some degree of heat injection between them, such that this heat energy is then extracted as mechanical energy. This heat could be provided as heat (such as the engine exhaust heat), or as combustion of a fuel. In most cases, the rotors are paired and coupled so as to provide compression, but a single rotor (driven by this heat energy) can still count as a gas turbine. Yet this is not what Coanda produced, claimed to produce, or patented. In Coanda's engine a single rotor was driven by the engine. Even if Coanda injected exhaust heat, that's a more efficient fan, but still not a turbine. Calling this a "turbo propulseur" doesn't change the flow of energy and make a (shaft driven) fan into a (gasflow driven) turbine. With Coanda's patents the "rotor" becomes more and more complex, but: it's still driven by the engine, and there's only one of them. Even with exhaust heat injection, that doesn't become a driven turbine. Nor (unless there's fuel injection) does it shift from being a ducted fan to a motorjet.

Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I have changed gas turbine to the bare turbine per your excellent argument. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even with "turbine" I'm reluctant.

The problem (and it's a big one) is that this isn't a turbine, it's a fan or compressor. Mechanical shaft energy becomes gasflow energy. This is a crucial mechanical principle and we have good evidence to support this conclusion.

The confusion arises from the "turbopropulseur" terminology. This is still a compressor or fan, and not a turbine (in the sense of how the energy is transformed). If there's the slightest room for argument over that, the article collapses into hopeless confusion. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy did you read in detail this discussions? Coanda said in the patent that was not a turbine. Sorry that I copy this extract the third time:

-----

"Just to explain you a bit more about the turbine and the powerplant Coanda was having. The most classical type of wind turbine existed many centuries ago (see

Coanda effect

studies. As well he is stating very clearly in the patent: "which can be compared to the constituent elements of a turbine or fan, but differ from the same by the fluid which is compressed in the said propeller, having to transmit its kinetic energy to the apparatus in form of an axial reaction and to escape from the diffusing apparatus."

Another important aspect which does not exist in any previous turbines is the fact that the vacuum created internally is used for enhancing the performance. ( see Contra-rotating propellers). Do you want more technical details? This is why I would be more careful when calling Coanda's powerplant a hair dryer. A hair dryer would not burn up his plane, in the air, even made if is made wood. ;) Coanda's "turbopropulseur" it was never considered a turboprop as in today's terms coined by Sir Frank Whittle and Hans Von Ohain. It is considered correctly as a "termojet". By the way did you know that Coanda made his plane in Gianni Caproni's atelier? And he was a very good friend of Secondo Campini which build this thing? I think you can see the connection alone to the 'termojet'."

----- --Lsorin (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is why in the end Gibbs-Smith uses the term "reaction" <<it was equipped with a reaction propulsion unit>> – Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith (1970). Aviation: an historical survey from its origins to the end of World War II, page 156. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.--Lsorin (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Andy, the confusion of 'turbo-propulseur' got to me. I changed 'turbine' to 'ducted fan or rotary compressor', as the mechanism does not appear to receive any energy from the air flow; rather, it expends energy from the piston engine. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to square one. How can a 50 HP engine generate 220 Kg thrust?--Lsorin (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can a 50 HP engine generate 220 Kg thrust?

A very good question, albeit highlighting a great naivete about jet engines! Have you even read a primer like Gunston or the Rolls-Royce handbook? If my teenage kid asked me that I'd be impressed, if someone pontificating on the reliability of sources for engine history articles does it, then I'm rather less so.

Engine shaft power and jet thrust are simply not directly comparable. In particular, there are velocity effects to worry about, so even if we assume "a standard propellor" then they're still not comparable. In particular, the thrust generated by a shaft motor will be a maximum at zero airspeed and falls off with increasing airspeed. Now there are industry accepted rules of thumb for comparing the two (You might like to contemplate Betz' law at this point, as being rather more relevant here than where you mis-applied it above), and under those then yes, that's a remarkably high thrust to generate from a small engine. For static thrust at near-zero airspeed though, it's no big deal at all. It probably is better than 1910 wooden propellors were achieving, but it's far from being a "missing energy" smoking gun that indicates Coanda must have been burning additional fuel in his duct.

For helicoidal vortices, or their absence, then just stop making assumptions about simplistic turbine or compressor designs. There are more arrangements of turbine around than the simplest and most well known.

Your understanding of "reaction" is no clearer either. This is a perfectly applicable term to a ducted fan, in no way does it indicate combustion, rockets or a turbine. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered correctly as a "termojet".

What evidence do you have that Coanda increased the internal energy of the gasflow by burning fuel in it, a necessary condition to be regarded as a thermojet. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for writing my last question in hurry without to much elaboration, as it was addressed to Binksternet at least several times. Of course the shaft power even multiplied like in Coanda's case and the jet of air, burned gases or even bananas ( Sorry, I was giving one example with bananas on the talk page. Please don't consider this rudeness ), do not compare. The Betz' law I listed here was just to show that is not possible, even in a static environment with high speed turbine not possible the go over a particular limit know as Betz limit. Calculating this according to the drawings of Coanda in different patents ( the English , French and Swiss one have different drawings showing that Coanda was testing different configurations ) it would be impossible to generate 220 kgf static force without increasing the kinetic energy of the straitened in the "diffusing apparatus" using Coanda's words ( this calculs is done a the introductory class in the "Henri Coanda" Romanian Air Force Academny). This increase was possible by changing the thermal gradient as already present in all internal combustion engines. Pierre Clerget was working together with Coanda on this tests and he was as well the one who helped Coanda will the metallurgic challenges that Coanda faced in building up the turbine. This is what Coanda explained in his correspondence and the later drawings of the injectors and burners provided with the help and knowledge of Clerget for the tests. As well as I stated before Caproni was working together with Coanda on this tests and the basic principles were used later in this "thermojet". Giovanni Caproni never denied any statements of Coanda that he tested the jet engine and the plane in December 1910 taken out strait from his own shop.

Regarding the "reaction engine", I wonder what is Boyne talking about in his "A Concise History of Jet Propulsion" story. Or is Boyne less relevant than Gunston or any Rolls-Royce handbook? If is just a "reaction engine" like Gibbs-Smith said in 1970 <<it was equipped with a reaction propulsion unit consisting of a 5o-hp Clerget engine driving a large ducted fan in front of it... Although inevitably unsuccessful, this aircraft stands as the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane.>> and Winter in 1980 <<If it never flew, Coanda did at least build, so far as we know, the first full-scale reactive-propelled machine>> is which "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_engine#Types_of_reaction_engines type of reaction engines" Coanda's thing is fitting? Or should we introduce a new type of reaction engine called "Coanda type reaction engine"?--Lsorin (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I still find it very hard to follow your train of thought. Betz' law is not applicable here (fans rather than turbines). Also Betz' law is a constraint on rate of energy extraction (i.e. power), not on thrust. At a slow enough speed, there's no provable constraint on the thrust that may be generated. This isn't of course a useful thrust and it will vanish with any speed, but it's enough to stop us constructing a proof that Coanda's claimed static thrust figure was impossible with a 50hp engine.

This increase was possible by changing the thermal gradient as already present in all internal combustion engines.
Evidence please. That looks like a claim that this was a motorjet, with burning fuel.

later drawings of the injectors and burners Again, burners would indicate a motorjet, but where are these drawings and where is the indication that they relate to the 1910 aircraft? If Caproni and Coanda collaborated on the later motorjet that's no surprise, but it doesn't indicate anything about the 1910 aircraft of thirty years earlier.

Coanda has as much claim on "jet propulsion" as the Stipa-Caproni has, and as little claim on the "jet engine", for just the same reasons. They are propelled by the acceleration of reaction mass and if the propulseur can be seen as a unit separate from the main airframe, then there's a claim for this being a "reaction engine". Any propellor-driven aircraft works by accelerating a reaction mass, so this very broad categorization is near-useless anyway. "the first full-scale reactive-propelled machine" is plainly wrong, because if you weaken the definition to that level, it now incorporates the Wright Flyer too. What Coanda's 1910 aircraft mostly isn't though is any sort of turbine, gas turbine, or motorjet. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Connection between Betz' limit and propellers. Theory demonstrates that the Betz' limit is applied to the propellers used for propulsion with the same mathematical approach to wind turbines. Coanda in his patent explains that the goal of his innovation is to generate thrust in a straitened air jet ("transmit its kinetic energy to the apparatus in form of an axial reaction"), which is different from any helicoidal vortex generated by any propeller. Is this 1942 article relevant to support their "little" claim with "World-wide publicity"? If Coanda's 1910 aircraft mostly isn't though is any sort of turbine, gas turbine, or motorjet then please tell us what is it though as, and bring the relevant sources as well here to sustain your claim.--Lsorin (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of pointless twaddle is why I haven't gone near the article. 8-(

Bentz' analysis techniques are applicable to propellors too, but not his conclusion as Bentz' law. Nor is a low-grade advert site pushing their own magic snake-oil a credible source. Nor for that matter is Bentz' law relating to energy rates of the slightest relevance to a claimed inequality regarding thrust! Thrust and power are not the same things.

As to helicoidal vortices, then there is an obvious proof that energy left in jet efflux with a rotational component is of no use for forward propulsion. Coanda would have been aware of this and his turbo-propulseur does indeed resemble an attempt to avoid this energy loss by delivering a non-rotating efflux. All of which makes it an improved ducted fan, but still a ducted fan. There's also the problem, as Stipa found out, that such improvements usually come at the cost of increased drag and the overall gain is lost in those increases.

As to what it is, then clearly it's a turbo-propulseur in Coanda's own terms, something which we would now recognise as a ducted fan. An engine drives a fan. A complex fan, admittedly, but still just a fan.

Incidentally, if you find an early (1930s, 1940s) book on gas turbines like Tom Sawyer's or Geoffrey Smith's, you'll find a great many early (pre-Campini) motorjet proposals described from workers like Lorin (1908, before Coanda), Mélot, Harris, Morize, Leduc and Eichelberg. Coanda is not listed amongst them. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great at least we managed to agree that is a "complex fan" creating strait jets. Once you take into account Coanda's statement from the patent that his turbo-propulsuer "which can be compared to the constituent elements of a turbine or fan, but differ from the same" and "In order to improve efficiency, the distributing conduits are heated" which clearly stated that turbo-propulsuer in not a fan and the straitened jets are heated to improve efficiency, could you please answer again my question: What type of "reaction engine" Coanda's turbo-propulsuer is? Just to add to this Gibbs-Smith statement from 1970: <<it was equipped with a reaction propulsion unit consisting of a 5o-hp Clerget engine">>. Thank you again, in advance for your answer!--Lsorin (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As already answered, "It is pointless to try and categorize this engine and its propulseur according to a taxonomy from Wikipedia. WP is not a reliable source. If we do categorize it, we should describe it as a ducted fan." Andy Dingley (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just found this discussion. Thanks for recommending some books about these subjects. Should make interesting reading. Romaniantruths (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome your name added to the Agree or Disagree list at Talk:Coandă-1910#RfC: Replacing with sandbox version. Feel free to weigh in. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's starting to annoy me now. If it wasn't for some of his work I'd be thinking he's just extracting the michael but I think he genuinely can't graps the concept of sigs. NtheP (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give him a chance.

WP:COMPETENCE is starting to look relevant, but he's doing some good digging in the archives that no-one else is likely to. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Agreed, he's found some great and interesting stuff but if he doesn't sort this sig thing out I'll just be really frustrated. NtheP (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for picking up the

Andy, thanks for your support, I was really beginning to doubt myself. You actually may have saved me a doctor's visit... Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for starting the article - it's one I'd meant to get around to writing for ages. I have some more information which I'll add in, if you're happy for me to do that. Have you thought about putting it forward at

Talking of matters Chepstow, I'm organising a steampunk festival there next May. http://wyewaltz.org Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed you. I'll try and add some bits to the Lancaut article in the next few days. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bits now added, and nominated at DYK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good!

Where were the stone loading jetties? I find it hard to believe that stone from the quarry went out from anywhere upstream of the most downstream bend in the river, certainly not the iron age works. Does this mean that "Lancaut" actually extended further down the "mainland"?

I wish I'd taken better photographs of the limekilns now. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The leaflet I've got says: "Stone was quarried at Lancaut Quarry [which is immediately to the east of the church] and jetties were built to transport it down river." So, it definitely seems to mean Lancaut rather than Woodcroft. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - there are photos of Lancaut Quarry in the museum collection, reprinted in a book I bought only this morning!

ISBN 0-86299-406-3

The photos of the workings captioned "Lancaut Quarry" are at the North end of the cliffs, much as I'd expect, but there's also a definite stone loading jetty with a three-leg derrick on the outside of the bend, beyond the main cliffs. That's a quarry further upstream than I'd realised existed. Can't be a big one though, I'll have to take a look for it. I'd assumed that any quarrying on the peninsular itself was merely minor workings to feed the limekilns, and that the limekilns were burning for agricultural lime, rather than mortar.

I have some photos of the big quarry too which ought to go on Commons

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply