User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2011 May

Hello, I noticed you were discussing about fine distinctions between the stored-program computer and Von Neumann architecture (now two separate articles). Recently I did some research on the IBM SSEC which seems an odd hybrid. It could treat its instructions exactly like data, but the programmers usually did not. Instead instructions were read from paper tapes and the 158 register x ~77 bit memory was used for data. These could still use editing. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added what you said. But this is what wikipedia is for, for you to add things yourself! Feel free to expand any of the wedding dresses I created.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have added it, except that I don't have good sourcing for it.

Well done on the articles BTW - these wedding dresses have always been a topic of much interest and we ought to have covered them. One of my local pubs (well, before I moved) in Bristol is "The Rose of Denmark", named after that hugely popular Princess of Wales. There's an Alexandra nearby too, also named after her. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Richard Trevithick, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chuggington, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• May I ask what the hell it would be expanded with? Don't expect the house to build itself. We don't usually HOPE that stuff will expand. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting a reply to my question posted on the talk pages for the above articles. I wondered if you could explain a little more about the concerns over the source of the information? Is it the phrasing which is used? Should I rewrite so that it is explained as an opinion as opposed to a fact? Also can you point me to where I can read about "COI issues" so that i can address that concern? Thank you for your time Collieman (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. Could you take a moment to view the discussion at:

Sorry about that, having mentioned you, Globbet, and Peter, I should have given you all the heads-up myself. Tim PF (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There Andy,

You deemed my edit to the "back to the planet" wikipedia entry as vandalism and removed it. It wasn't. I am one of the former (1991) and current (2008 - current) members of back to the planet, marshall penn. I was also in Conflict for 13 years. What do i do to make any edits stick?

Regards Marshall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.180.165 (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could explain how you get a noise out of a babboon. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy- I saw that you removed two external links to my companies website that I added to the Flettner Rotor Ship and Magnus Effect pages. I'm new to adding links / editing pages and thought that the links I added were within the Wikipedia rules. I wanted to let people know that my company is currently working to bring to market a technology that is very much related to these topics. I didn't mean them as spam but rather just informative of what one player is doing in the market. Thanks, in advance for your help. Best, MagnussVOSS (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL

is a good read. The point is that "the ideal Wiki article" doesn't have, or need, any external links. We're an encyclopedia of complete articles, not a link directory. Readers should "get the picture" just from reading the article, without having to follow links as well.

To justify an

EL, they must add something new that's not in the article. Re-stating an explanation of the Magnus effect isn't enough - we should be doing that within the article. If the justification of the link is instead to note that some company is working on new Magnus devices, then that's certainly relevant and interesting. The link though needs to go to a section on the site that describes this new work, not merely re-states the same explanation. It might be even better if a paragraph was added to the article describing this new work, then linking to the web site as a reference. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Assume a petrol-engined four-stroke engine, as that's what most cars use.

Fuel and air are mixed together. They used to be mixed in a

thermodynamic energy

in the heated gas. This pressure forces the piston downwards, during the power stroke. The expanding gas drops in both pressure and temperature, which represents energy from the hot gas turning into mechanical energy given to the moving piston.

After the piston reaches the bottom for the second time, the exhaust stroke begins - the exhaust valve opens and the piston (now rising again) forces the exhaust out of the cylinder. The exhaust is still hot and at raised pressure at this point - this represents some waste in the engine's efficiency.

Mechanically, the piston drives the connecting rod and in turn the crankshaft. This is then connected to the clutch and gearbox, or else an automatic transmission, and then the final drive through the axle and the wheels.

Diesels and two stroke engines are different, but not by much. Any other terms here, they ought to be explained here on Wikipedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not angry with you. i am frustrated beyond belief. wiki has been irrelevant in my technical field. the information was inaccurate at best and fundamentally wrong all to frequently. bluntly, popular science had a better reputation. then i hear wiki wants to improve its academic credibility. so i make an effort. after my first bumps and bruises that you nursed me through i venture off on my own. what do i discover, sales literature. all i see is an endless accumulation of salesmen trying to get their products noticed. with the exception of 2 wonderful contributors, no one has made any effort to clean up the mess that exists in the sum total of turbomachinery. those 2 wonderful contributors are gone. their articles are being destroyed paragraph by paragraph. wiki is the best of ideas. please help me get some perspective. is there a team of tech specialists and mathematicians that these changes can be brought to to judge?Mkoronowski (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technical experts? Maybe you've driven them off with your unstoppable stream of edits (far from all of which were an improvement) and your obvious wish to ban anyone who disagrees with you. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok on the edits, i understand and will work toward that end if you think i should continue. i do now wish to ban anyone that disagrees with me. in fact, I know none of my peers would ever hesitate to point out an error. no one made me god. its a part of the culture.

I will protest strongly when anyone knowingly says 2+2=5. I've seen errors and know what they are, i've made almost all of them myself. when a benevolent contributor to society like wiki is taken advantage of by contributors who knowing violate the same principles i read when i started i can only apologize to everyone other than the violators.

I will also protest strongly when dyson has marketeers misrepresent his graphically modern bladeless fan as something new when i can show you the same principle in my 35 year old text books. jets of air that entrain surrounding air is not mechanical, its viscosity. in fact the noise reduction and efficiency gains of ducted fan aircraft engines has been around for decades. bottom line is i would have no problem in any way if the paragraph explained how a mechanical fan, in its base, was used to make the bladeless fan successful. Am I alone in my problem with contributors misrepresenting technology? I hold up the article that tried to sell the "water fuel" engine. i hate scam artists.

the paragraph i took out was entitled dyson. is that kind of advertising allowable? i can live with it if that is what wiki says is correct.

turbomachinery has been edited with contributions from siemens and MAN as shown by the pictures. is it desirable or allowed to use these pictures? is it advertising when the manufacturers name is unnecessary?

turbochargers was full of auto enthusiasts writing the same thing in different paragraphs. the auto enthusiasts have lists of cars significant to them. aircraft, locomotives and heavy marine diesels don't. is that fair or neutral? I would say no.

please look at centrifugal compressors now and compare it to where it was when i started. is it now a proper starting point or not?

i can roll away from this and leave the mess just the way it is, i can undo my changes, or someone can hold my hand for a few hours and show me how to do it right....I look at some of the articles, like those in math and calculus and go wow... awesome, i look at most of the turbomachinery entries and some related articles like the affinity laws and Actual cubic feet per minute and then start looking for a grading ledger to mark an F. the affinity law entry doesn't even agree with its reference!

I've got a crazy idea. who can i send corrections and ideas to? someone with a little mathematical or technical background? someone who understands how wiki works and can merge some of my thoughts, when its the correct thing to do. what grade level is wiki suppose to be written for? I see articles from entry level grad school down to high school. if i remember correctly, the nytimes is now written for an 8th grader. i consider my writing poor at best, but i eventually can get it right.

do you think wiki looses credibility when individuals start spinning topics? don't you think they can do more damage than good just because of the effort it takes to write and footnote legitimate entries?

please show me those changes that weren't an improvement. it is your fault not to have told me sooner, so i can at least double check if not change or correct? I have no bond to any of my material other than it was my attempt to correct errors. if wiki is suppose to be a laymen's encyclopedia i am okay with that and can undo all my bilge. if your upset that you use to understand what was said and now you don't, you have 3 choices, tell me i don't belong, ask me a question and tell me about your academic background or let it go.

while i often make mistakes i have 36 years experience in all forms of turbomachinery aero-thermo-fluid dynamics. there likely less than ten-thousand individuals in the world qualified to correct wiki's turbomachinery articles. just as there are a limited number of people qualified to write many of the mathematics articles in wiki. i may or may-not be one of them. yet, i can assure you, i have only seen a total of less than a half dozen contributors that have done it right. I've look them up to see if they were recently active. none are. it would have been a great help to collaborate with them. any of them. I saw no college professors, not one consultant, no one from nasa lewis, GEAE, PW, Rolls Royce, russian companies, chinese, indians, Israelis, french, germans, Swedes, swiss, japanese or koreans. i have recently talked on the phone with a contributor of a pump graphic that i recognized, he was a salesman for a company i consulted with. turbomachinery is my specialty. you make my call.

just took the time to read some of your talk pages in various article that you wrote. it seems you have gone through some of my experiences. and you have taken people to task just as i did here. for similar reasons, you knew better and you knew they were playing games. why pick on me? just because i rebuilt my first small engine (seagull) when i was 9? because i spent a summer with a master technician from rolls royce? or because i read each and every of Smokey Yunick's technical magazine articles? or maybe because my old company consulted with a sprint cup team on aerodynamics? or because i'm an orangeman?Mkoronowski (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR

Editing is more than bulk typing.

As to Dyson, then read the intro to the article. For right or wrong, "mechanical fan" as described in that article's scope clearly includes Dyson's.

As to Siemens and MAN making contributions, then it's one thing to exclude spam, quite another to take a simplistic antagonistic position to anyone who might be competent, or who might work in the field itself. The purpose of

WP:POLICY

is not the exercise of policy itself, it is the production of a better encyclopedia. Knee-jerk responses of "You know something about this, therefore you mustn't edit it!" are unhelpful.

Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not about to template a solid regular like yourself. However: that mundane newspaper report didn't really add anything to steampunk; and your COI should have precluded your adding it. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Mike, I only added it because even the term "Victorian" now seems to be in conflict for a Steampunk influence. As to mundane, well, you know how "a real printed newspaper" trumps real content round here, and one has to use what one's aware of. COI would have been using it to push the festival! Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in knowing how the magnetic flux can flow at all if there's really only one magnetic pole involved ;-)Rememberway (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that motor is so horrible in nearly every respect is because the flux from the far side of the iron piece in the rotor has to go through an absolutely enormous air gap to reach the opposite pole of a magnet. It only works at all because iron is so very highly permeable. It's just an incredibly crude reluctance motor with a mechanical commutator.Rememberway (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has an enormous air gap (which isn't a problem). Even worse, the solenoids have a simple axial core, rather than a horseshoe or cup armature. This makes much more difference than the length of the air gap!

It isn't however a reluctance motor. You need to look more carefully at the meaning of magnetic reluctance, and how a reluctance motor actually works. The reluctance motor works because it uses a rotor that spans a magnetic circuit through an armature, and so there is a gradient in the change of reluctance with armature angular position. In the simple attractive motors like Ritchie's and Froment's, there is no such appreciable gradient. They work according to the strength of the attractive field, not the rate of change in this field strength with position. No one claims they're efficient, they're merely of historical interest.

I don't understand the distinction, isn't the rate of change of a potential with position a force? If not, how can it move if there is no net force?Rememberway (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to study the definition and meaning of reluctance, to think about how reluctance of the overall circuit changes with rotation of the rotor, and to study carefully how a reluctance motor works.

I'm sure I basically get it now.Rememberway (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, from before you started sockpuppeting as Rememberway, you disclose a lack of deep understanding about a topic, yet no reluctance (sorry) to pontificate on the subject. Nor do you have any interest in sourcing your claims. As your main account of User:Wolfkeeper was banned from operating undisclosed sockpuppets (WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive216#Proposed_editing_restrictions_on_User:Wolfkeeper), I don't understand how you're even still allowed to be editing, but I no longer give a damn about Wikipedia and its inconsistencies.

People were following me around and revert warring. I would never voluntarily announce my account under those circumstances, and it wasn't like I was vandalising or double voting anything. It (would have) basically amounted to a permaban, but I hadn't done anything worth permabanning over, and this was noted at the time.Rememberway (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"People were following me around and revert warring. " When everyone is doing it to you, it's either a Global Conspiracy, or it's not them that have the problem. Your edits were crap - you spouted half-understood vagueness and regularly took great exception to anything that you didn't understand, not because it was wrong, but simply because you don't understand it. This is the classic behaviour of the internet autodidact. Now I hate to be put in the position of claiming "Professional Engineers with Degrees only", but this is the behaviour that gives amateurs a bad name. You didn't do an EE degree, so you haven't properly studied or been taught about reluctance, and you've never thought about something in terms of field gradients, rather than simple scalars (read an intro guide to General Relativity - the same "curved rubber sheet" principle applies to all sorts of physical and non-physical effects, back from when Leibniz invented differentiation)

I have actually been taught reluctance, but had never used it for anything, so I had forgotten about it, but I have certainly never studied reluctance motors, although years ago I did have a limited exposure to stepper motor theory. And yes, I have been taught E-M field theory.Rememberway (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a policy issue: you were given a specific topic ban to not sock, yet you socked silently. Why aren't you banned?

I didn't use a sock to evade a topic ban.Rememberway (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electric motor is one of those wiki articles that's of broad scope, thus doomed to fiddling by everyone and his dog - let alone the regular vandalism from every minor Indian technical college. I try to avoid worrying about such articles - I can't fix them. If you're re-working it overall, then at least there's a hope it might gain some clearer editorial flow. As to my changes to that article, my only point was to try and clarify (mostly for the benefit of Commons:User:KVDP who has real trouble with this idea, many bad uploads passim) that modern motors work by the interaction of two field, not simple attraction of an electromagnet. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at it many different ways. Fields are good.Rememberway (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked into this mill motor some more, I wasn't so very familiar with this particular motor, and I suspect you aren't either. It turns out that your explanation of how it works (and my previous understanding) is at considerable variance with the facts. In the Froment motor there very much is U-shaped electromagnet cores, and the airgap is small at both poles. So it seems to be actually a transverse flux switched reluctance motor. There's good photographs of real motors here where that is very clear.Rememberway (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the Froment motor there very much is U-shaped electromagnet cores

No - Froment invented his motor before the Great Exhibition. They became much more popular later on, with their use for automatic telegraphy. Whilst the later practical machines used horseshoe armatures, I'm unaware of a single motor by Froment that did so. AFAIK, the horseshoe armature (for this motor) was the innovation of Daniel Davis in Boston. There are reasons for this (and despite your snipe, I know far more about the blacksmithing of horseshoe magnets than you do) - Froment had no ability to make a horseshoe armature and doesn't seem to have considered it. Davis had made something of his reputation on the quality of his magnet metallurgy. In a town filled with instrument makers (shipping ports usually were), Davis established a reputation as "the man" for magnetic devices. This was because the blackmsithing of an efficient horseshoe magnet, or a horseshoe armature, is a tricky piece of metallurgy - the metal must be forged and its structure formed by careful work, then it must be bent as gently as possible without damaging the structure that had been carefully established. Although it is far easier to make a soft iron armature in a horseshoe, making permanent magnets of high remanence was a black art known only to a few at this time - Davis was one of them. As "the horseshoe guy", it's unsurprising that he used such an armature in the motors he made. Later, and large, motors used a bolted square U.

None of this is important to the point at issue here anyway. If Froment used an open-ended solenoid, then it would have been inefficient as an enormous air gap. We agree on this much.

The point about the magnetic circuit though, and whether this is a reluctance motor or not, is about the rotor, not the stator. A reluctance motor has a rotor whose overall diameter fills the gap between pole pieces, and the flux passes through this rotor from "side to side" (even if they aren't opposing sides, merely adjacent poles). The reason is that as the rotor rotates, the reluctance of the overall circuit changes, as the poles on rotor and stator move in and out of phase. This is crucial to the behaviour of the reluctance motor!

In the Froment motor, and simple attraction motors in general, the rotor is "distant" from the pole piece and is always distant, even as it rotates. There is an attractive force (there is a field and magnetised iron), but the reluctance of the circuit doesn't change appreciably with this rotation. The useful torque is due merely to the scalar value of the attractive force, not to the gradient. Understanding this is what makes electric motors far smaller and more efficient - attraction motors have to be large, because their poles have to be isolated by simple distance. Realising that a torque can be extracted instead from the gradient of a changing condition (whether this be field strength or reluctance) allows a far smaller motor to be made, with smaller air gaps that are in turn more efficient. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's very interesting and useful, thanks. I definitely get your point about gradient and I understand how this gives much better torque, and I can certainly now see how the standard reluctance motor achieves that.Rememberway (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. What was I thinking? My bad. Thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re this revert; please see Biscuit joiner#The sizes of standard biscuits and Biscuit joiner#The sizes of Porter Cable biscuits, and restore my edit. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are, as far as I know, all cut with the same outside radius (i.e. sawblade diameter). Lamello's mini biscuits use a thinner slot and a special sawblade, but this is still (AFAIK) the same cut diameter. Neither does the intro even mention the blade thickness.

#0, #10 & #20 biscuits are well standardised. There are also several mini-biscuit sizes that are manufacturer-specific and may well use smaller cutter diameters. However I don't have any supporting refs for these.

Either way though, "typically 100mm" is unhelpful, as it implies that the "standard biscuit joiner" comes with a variety of sawblades - they don't. The point is that #0 to #20 all use the same diameter. If there is evidence to support some of the minis using a mini blade, then that shoudl be added. However that still shouldn't be added to the lead as just "typically 100mm", it would need to be clearer and more specific, that the majority of "standard biscuit sizes" used the standard blade and the hypothetical mini blade was quite separate and specific.

Otherise though, you're perfectly capable of making the edits as well as I can. Comments above taken into consideration, I wouldn't argue with you changing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I back your changes to Diesel engine. Krontach posts are original research and where sources are given they are questionable or totally unreliable. You might want to keep an eye on the article. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your addition to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TobiasConrad, then saw the note on that page that said investigations should be notified at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi, so I moved your contributions across to that one. Trouble is I don't yet see the latter page showing up on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If I have missed a step then I apologise. Any idea how to sort it out? --Biker Biker (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should work fine under either name, with just a manual redirect. This was caused by my mis-remembering of the name, but I think it's quie common for an SPI to have its susspected sockmaster renamed in the middle of it, so the templates have been made robust against this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Perhaps you could keep an eye to make sure it appears and I haven't screwed it up. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]