User talk:Thewellman

Archive 2007 - 2011
Archive 2012 - 2014

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Army creole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Profane. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Army creole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Snafu. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Concerning the rate of fire for the 8 inch 55 caliber guns like the USS Louisville CA 28 had - the USS Louisville #3 pictorial history book states 2.1 rounds per minute. Also, if you watch the Y-tube video it shows the USS Chicago CA 29 loading & firing the guns almost (3) rounds in a minute. Remember the guns have to be lowered to the load postion of about 15 degrees & then elevated to the fire position. (4) rounds a minute is pretty fast & the sailors in this video are really moving just to get (3) per minute. Take care! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJATTROTTA (talk • contribs) 20:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped you an email. Worm^TT(talk) 12:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thewellman. I know that U-173 sunk one transport while U-130 sunk three. The phrasing is a little strange. Apparently the "Final actions" section details the fate of ships first mentioned in the previous section, and I didn't pick up on that. I figured the sentence right after the one about U-130's attack should only deal with the ships hit by U-130, not those hit earlier by U-173. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Biosolids, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got this note on my talk page by Velella and I would equally like to invite you to take a look here: "I don't know whether your experience extends to landfill leachate, but if it does I would welcome an independent view on a recent flurry of edits at

• I remember the L-188 Electra incidents you describe from news reports at the time and from subsequent active duty with naval aviation units. Although I left active duty before you did, I was under the impression the Navy had concluded (both through prototype acceptance and subsequent service experience) the L-188 whirl mode failures had been satisfactorily addressed by structural improvements incorporated into the P-3 design. The event sequence appears to be: wing-tank over-pressurization -> #1 engine separation -> wing failure. Do you recall the way accident reports were prepared to deflect blame away from procedural errors which might damage future career opportunities for the (surviving) personnel involved? Can you provide a reference citation for your objection to fuel tank over-pressurization as a contributing cause of wing weakness allowing the engine separation and subsequent wing failure you describe? Thewellman (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the above discussion to the

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Garand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shooting gallery. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Crosstrees

added a link pointing to Antenna

Top (sailing ship)

added a link pointing to Antenna

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from W55 into RUR-5 ASROC. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thewellman

Proud to be a New Englander

Editor of the Week for the week beginning June 25, 2016

An 8 year vet with a large body of article work (over 100 articles) in a variety of interests such as transportation, firearms, rivers, water and many more. Friendly and helpful, his 70% article namespace total shows an editor that is here to work.

Recognized for

High standards of, and dedication to, article work

Nomination page

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Wikipedia Editor Retention Project )

I nominate Thewellman to be Editor of the Week for his large body of article work. His varied interest has led to participation in Projects about transportation, firearms, rivers, water and many more. He's generally friendly and helpful where I've seen his work, to the extent that I was looking at nominating him to be an admin just last year.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and thanks for all you do! Buster Seven Talk 10:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Excellent addition to the Sanitary Sewer article on anticipated flows when relining pipes. Thanks! This editor is a Novice Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge. 16:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Thewellman,

thanks again for your recent improvments on the Sewage farm article.

I wanted to inform you that I just did some re-wording of the article. Some sentences I initially found a little hard to comprehend as a non-engineer and non-native speaker of English. I tried to rewrite some of them to make it easier for a person with a similar background to grasp the meaning.

I would be grateful, though, if you would look at my changes and see that my comprehension was correct and I did not adulterate the content.

In particular it wasn't really clear to me, why the sewage farms are particulary suited to arid climate (other than the need for irrigation there). So I went ahead and changed some of the wording according to my understanding but I left this sentence intact: "Arid climates may allow temporary storage of sewage in holding ponds while the soils dry out during non-growing seasons, but such storage may cause odor and aquatic insect problems, including mosquitoes."

Maybe you could explain why temporary storage (and sewage farming in general) is a feasable option in arid climates rather than in colder regions where I would expect pathogens to be less likely to thrive.

I appreciate your effort, --KaiKemmann (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your recent question on my talk page about the preference for arid climates: Agricultural application of an engineering mass balance is called a water balance. The system is defined as the land growing crops. Water inputs to the system are sewage plus precipitation. Water outputs from the system are evaporation into the atmosphere, percolation into the soil, conversion to plant mass, transpiration from the plants to the atmosphere, and surface runoff. From a sanitary engineering perspective, optimum system performance is obtained when surface runoff is minimized, because runoff will carry sewage pathogens and pollutants into natural waterways. Residential sewage production (and input into the system) is expected to be relatively constant and percolation capacity is similarly constant unless the ground freezes; but plant growth, transpiration, and evaporation will vary with temperature and humidity. Arid climates are preferred because precipitation of sufficient intensity to cause runoff will cause pollution of the natural watercourses receiving that runoff. Arid climates seldom receive enough precipitation to cause runoff, so an engineer can measure evaporation, percolation, and plant uptake to determine the amount of land required to use the expected rate of sewage production. Thewellman (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course, that is the explanation. I really should have been able to guess it.

I will transfer our conversation to the article talk page as a reference and maybe put add your reasoning to the article itself. Best regards, KaiKemmann (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the list of towns on the watershed template because I think that is irrelevant. Feel free to revert and discuss it with me. Moxhay (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for pointing that out to me. Moxhay (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Thewellman

I saw you were a member of Wikiproject Water and thought you might be interested in a project I'm working on. I'm currently Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO and running a project to copy text from open license UNESCO publications into Wikipedia as either new articles or to improve existing articles. One of these documents is the 2016 UN World Water Development Report, Water and Jobs. If you are interested in taking part please have a look at the project here and message me on my talk page with any questions.

Thanks very much

--John Cummings (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. You don't seem to pay attention to your talk page much, since you haven't answered here since May, but I do have a question about one of your edits. I am working on a top-to-bottom

What specific information do you think is missing from pages 138 and 172 thru 178 of that source? Thewellman (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	WikiConference North America Barnstar
	Thank you for the role you played at WikiConference North America 2016. This year's conference could not have been a success without your contributions and we hope you will continue to be involved in 2017. On behalf of WikiConference North America - Gamaliel (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your revert.
I suppose you mean these symbols: ☃☃
Actually, I did not inserted them; they happened during editing through Visual Editor for some strange reason, probably a bug or some wrong procedure I did. --

]

Holiday card

Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas, Thewellman!

"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end And sickness nor sorrow don't find you." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Tito Dutta (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Tito Dutta (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—USS Princeton (1843)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. RM2KX (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Improved Military Rifle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This page consists of advertising material and does not have significant historical information to be of any genuine value. IMR Legendary Powder is a product of Hodgdon Powder. Therefore, since this page speaks about a rifle but lists a number of IMR Legendary Powders sales information I suggest it be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Digitallymade (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your past and ongoing contributions to Wikipedia I would like to issue you this barnstar. May it continue to spin as your edits continue to improve the content on Wikipedia. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for putting together the watershed navboxes for the region (not just the Merrimack one)! I was also going to take a look at the towns listed in at least the Merrimack navbox, so I was wondering if you could tell me what criteria you're using for inclusion? For instance, I would recommend adding Ashland, New Hampshire, because it's right on the Pemigewasset, but wasn't sure whether other towns in the watershed that are farther from any major river would count. --Ken Gallager (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - Do you know how to make templates collapsible? I tried using the Windham County, Vermont, navbox as an example, but did not succeed in collapsing the CT River navbox. This would be sufficient for the Barkhamsted Reservoir (Saville Dam) article, I think. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, figured it out. I was going to propose splitting the template into states if this didn't work out, but looks like that won't be necessary. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I took Chocorua off the navbox because it is the only entry that is not a town. It is a village within the town of Tamworth. Do you have any criteria for unincorporated places? Rather than try to decide whether to include, say, North Conway, Conway village, Glen, Kearsarge, etc., my suggestion is that the navbox just include actual municipalities. What do you think? --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User 2017 wildfire has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have userfied this for you at User:Thewellman/User 2017 wildfire, please feel free to move it wherever. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little nudge as you got so far with it already...! How is is looking regarding that article on ponds in your sandbox? Ready to move it online? Would be great. EMsmile (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese used at that time the metric system with which the measurements were realized in millimeters and centimeters, not in inches. Thus, the guns of the Japanese Navy are built in exact metric measurements; the 15.5cm gun is

Hi Thewellman, I noticed that you sometimes edit related to wastewater and sanitation topics. That's great, thank you for your contributions!

I am EMsmile, and I am a part of a group of people wishing to improve sanitation-related articles on Wikipedia (which also includes topics around water supply and public health). If you have any questions about this work, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page.

After running our first SuSanA Wikipedia Edit-a-thon for World Water Day in March 2017, we are now doing something similar but better for World Toilet Day. This drive is taking place during the two months prior to 19 November 2017. We've put together an outline of how we see this working here in our Meetup page. This time we are focussing on a select few number of articles (we have chosen 70). Also we are focussing mainly on improving their readability scores and their leads.

Can you help? Then please start editing and improving any number of those 70 articles which are listed here. And please get in touch with us on the talk page of that meetup page because it is always more fun to feel part of a team effort!

Also if you are interested in improving sanitation-related articles in general, you may want to join WikiProject Sanitation as well, which is a longer term effort, not limited to World Toilet Day.

Hi, I noticed you posted a question about this gun on the talk page of user DallasS12345. I was waiting to see if he'd actually respond. But, I see that today, as usual, he simply deleted your post without a response, not even a edit summary. (Perhaps you were able to discuss this with him somewhere else?) This is a long-standing problem with this user. When he first joined, I had to fix litterally dozens and dozens of his edits. There was a serious WP:CIR issue. And despite numerous attempts, he always refused to engage in any discussion. To date, I still think he never has. If you look at his talk page history, you will see numerous warning templates, all removed without a response. It seems the problem editing continues. I had thought of raising the issue with perhaps an admin at the SHIPS project, or maybe something else. If you have any suggestions, I'd like to hear them. If you care to take any action, you have my support. Cheers -

• @
  Thewolfchild: Thank you for taking notice of this situation and bringing past history to my attention. After receiving no response to my deleted attempt at communication, I've moved the discussion to the article talk page. I'm reluctant to request action by Wikipedia's overworked administrators, but my assumption of good faith is wearing thin. I'll keep your suggestions in mind if this problem continues. Thewellman (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Well, that said, I'll leave it with you. If I can be of any help, just let me know. Cheers. -

^theWOLFchild 19:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Thewellman. On 26 September 2017 you made a change to the "Double-action/single-action" section of the Trigger (firearms) article. The change involved inserting a comment asking for a redirect to be changed if the section wording is changed. I have inserted an anchor (see Template:Anchor) that should prevent the redirect breaking under those circumstances. I hope that helps. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was reading the wiki article Built-up gun and it was pretty interesting, but there aren't many dates involved. It seems like most of it was written by you, do you know if the 1876 date was the start of this design or were there earlier experiments? Cheers Faulty (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Just a reminder, since you haven't been notified in the past year. –dlthewave ☎ 22:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really would like your insights at User talk:Qui1che#Gauge interest in pursuing dispute resolution re the Geobox river / Infobox River Tfd and merge process. --papageno (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching a number of mistakes that I made yesterday. In the process of revising my user script to make sure this doesn't happen again.--Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect HMS Partridge (G30). Since you had some involvement with the HMS Partridge (G30) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Wow, thank you! FAHansson (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 180.251.249.68. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Armor-piercing bullet have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. —Preceding undated comment added 22:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you so much for replying and responding to my edits. I am fleshing out the history as I, myself, am digging into it. I am not sure if I am supposed to reply here or on my page! However, after starting to respond here, I thought perhaps I could bring the discussion to the talk page for the dog. There are still several questions I'm looking into as I'm combing through this history. Winspiff (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind! I think there are a few questions to ask you before bringing the question to the dog's talk page.

It sounds as if one of the major cases you observed is that the dogs were likely kept on the boat vessels with the fisherman. This makes quite a lot of sense. What I'd like to figure out is this:

• Are the St. John's dogs (and Newfoundland dogs) in fact a byproduct of the mating of fishing dogs from various cultures (e.g. Portuguese, English, French)?

• If the Portuguese (for example) brought their own fishing dogs to Newfoundland, and those dogs stayed primarily on the boats, would they mate with other dogs on the shore or on the boats? If on the boats, is it possible that the St. John’s dogs developed primarily from one culture over the others?

• If they were primarily boat dogs, in the winters, where would the dogs live? I assume that if their owners were overwintering on land (correct?), the dogs would as well? How important was overwintering to the development of these dogs?

• Are there any modern “fishing dogs” that may be related to the St. John’s dogs (rather than originating from them)?

• Importantly: from your personal observations (your own observations on 1st person anecdotes prevailing), how prevalent was the
  Newfoundland
  ? I am finding several debates - some quite voracious - over whether that breed is truly native to Newfoundland, or if it is, instead, a dog that was bred with mastiffs specifically to appeal to the English import market.

I know that you cannot address all of these questions yourself, but perhaps some of these questions will relate to your knowledge of maritime history.

Winspiff (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your experiences and research are incredibly interesting! I wanted to ask: Based on your knowledge of maritime history, where were the fisherman overwintering around 1536? The Newfoundland island is quite large, so the location of their posts, the nationalities of the people there, and how spread apart they are would have an influence on what dogs could interbreed.Winspiff (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"the well man" doesn't seem to be so "well" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.251.172 (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your Thanks on Ship gun fire-control system. Although I have lived in New England, I am not a native English speaker, and I would really appreciate if you could go over the grammar and polish the section Ship gun fire-control system#Pre-Dreadnought director system for its style and choice of words. Yiba (talk | contribs) 00:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding catapult acceleration figure in Observation seaplane, Catapult and recovery procedures,

80mph = 128km/h = 35.56m/sec, 1G = freefall acceleration = 9.8m/sec^2

In order to accelerate to 35.56m/sec in half a second: x = 35.56 / 9.8 / 0.5^2 = 14.5G, which will break the plane and kill the pilot.

If it takes 1.5sec: x = 35.56 / 9.8 / 1.5^2 = 1.6G

fyi, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i57A_WJdpHo "165mph in 2 sec"

165mph = 264 km/h = 73.33m/sec, x = 73.33 / 9.8 / 2.0^2 = 1.87G

I believe "one-half" is someone's misinterpretation of "1-1/2". Yiba (talk | contribs) 01:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that sounds extreme, but the US observation seaplane catapult was notoriously punishing with the highest G-load of any US Navy aircraft catapult - significantly higher than the aircraft carrier catapults. Please check my math. The plane starts at 0 kph, and after moving 9.1 meters to the end of the catapult was traveling 130 kph = (130,000 m/3600 sec) = 36 m/sec. Average speed over that 9.1 meters was 18 m/sec. Time on the catapult = 9.1 m / (18 m/sec) = 1/2 sec. Please tell me if you find a mistake. Thewellman (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is fun! The concept of "average" and "speed vs acceleration" are often complicated and sometimes very misleading. I had to think hard how to illustrate this in easy-to-understand manner:

Your calculation assumes a steady increase of speed over the 9.1m (14.44kph increase in every meter)

Speed__0_____14____29____43____57____72____87___101___116___130kph, simple average is: (14+29+43+57+72+87+101+116+130)/9 = 72kph (= 20m/sec, Difference to your 18m/sec is rounding error on just 9 samples) <-this is your calculation.

Catapult_0_____1_____2_____3_____4_____5_____6_____7_____8_____9m

Actual__0____4.5____5.7___8.8___13.8___21.6___33.8___52.9___82.8__130kph, simple average is: (4.5+5.7+8.8+13.8+21.6+33.8+52.9+82.8)/9 = 24.9kph (= 6.91m/sec average) so the plane takes 9.1m / 6.91 = 1.32 seconds to cover the 9.1m

Probably you've seen how this kind ('Actual' above) of acceleration looks on rocket launches, and this is how a projectile accelerates in a gun barrel with much more ferocity. "Your kind" of acceleration is closer to how a car accelerates in 1st gear with a manual transmission.

The G force on the plane/pilot is:

35.56 / 9.8 / 1.32^2 = 2.1G <- you're right, this is more than the G force experienced by modern Hornet pilots of 1.87G.

Yiba (talk | contribs) 10:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

err, I made a mistake. Simple average of the Actual is (4.5+5.7+8.8+13.8+21.6+33.8+52.9+82.8+130.0)/9 = 39.3kph (=10.92m/sec average) so the plane takes 9.1m / 10.92 = 0.83 seconds to cover the 9.1m

The G force on the plane/pilot is:

35.56 / 9.8 / 0.83^2 = 5.3G Yikes! this is close to "knocking a human unconscious" level. Are you sure about 80mph and 9.1m figures? Yiba (talk | contribs) 12:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting my erroneous assumption. I think you would be correct about the similarity to a bullet acceleration, since the seaplane catapult used the powder charge for a 5-inch naval gun. Small arms propellants lose pressure rapidly as the burning rate is unable to generate gas quickly enough to keep up with the increasing volume of the barrel behind the projectile, but artillery propellant grains are large enough to offer greater flexibility under Piobert's law. I am interested in the rocket acceleration analogy, since I assumed rockets experienced increasing acceleration over time as a uniform force acted on the mass of the rocket being decreased by the mass of fuel expended. I have been catapult launched from an aircraft carrier and heard those steam catapults were significantly less intense than the observation seaplane catapult. The launch speed and catapult length were taken from the source article, but my parenthetical acceleration note might best be deleted as original research. Your contribution to Wikipedia is very valuable. Thewellman (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"powder charge for a 5-inch naval gun" is very interesting. If we can find the length of a 5-inch gun barrel and the mass of its shell, we could calculate the approximate velocity at muzzle (as we know roughly how much an observation seaplane weighs). However, analogy is an analogy, and I don't know the details like how much of energy is used/lost in making the shell spin --rubbing against the rifling. Likewise, I don't know the details of rocket dynamics, except that the reduction in air drag in gained altitude (less air density) is significant in the first few km of the launch --compounding the loss in the mass. After that stage, the reduction in weight (not mass) due to the increased distance to the earth would be significant. And so I have to agree that the rocket analogy is an exaggerated example, but I don't know how significant that exaggeration is.

Rate of burn is a subject often poorly understood, but is a very important performance determinant of thermodynamically operated apparatus from guns to internal combustion engines and rockets. There are references to Shimose powder used in the Russo-Japanese war that do not distinguish the use of gun powder as the slow burn propellant as opposed to a rapid burn explosive in the shell. When Shimose was (accidentally) ignited in a naval gun chamber, it destroyed the gun itself.

A good editor can find mistakes in the articles and sources. When he/she makes the correction on such an article, it is considered un-sourced and thus original research. I feel Wikipedia used to have a lot more mature editors who know well about the subjects, and they've been driven away. Yiba (talk | contribs) 06:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I should have told you one more thing that is very relevant. The rate of twist (how many degrees of twist in a meter) of rifling is uniform from the chamber-end of the barrel to the muzzle-end on all guns except smooth-bores. If the projectile accelerates in the bore like the way in 'your' assumption, the twist rate must increase toward the muzzle in order to accelerate the spin. But because the shells accelerate the way I described, the spin speed (RPM) gradually increases from zero in the chamber along the uniform-twist-rate rifling to its max spin speed at the muzzle. I believe one direction of spin achieves more accuracy in the northern hemisphere than the other, and the other direction is more accurate in the southern hemisphere. I used to know, but forgot if clockwise looking from the gun/ship is the prominent direction (if you have a pistol, the direction of twist should be the same). British Royal Navy may have the only reliable data measured by modern instruments on using guns made in the northern hemisphere in the south (Falklands), but I don't see any possibility of them publishing such data. Yiba (talk | contribs) 07:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Vehicular violence in the United States has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Love of Corey (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source is given in new footnotes in the amendments - principally Dodson and Cant - footnote 15 in this case.

Your edit to Vehicle-ramming attack has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Love of Corey (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Vehicle-ramming attack, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Love of Corey (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thewellman. Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion is believed to be inactive. It looks like you sympathize with inclusionism, but do not take an active role in this project. Thus, I will move you to the list of inactive participants after a month. Feel free to move back to the list of active participants when you are ready to contribute. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you want to have this discussion? 84.120.7.178 (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inclusion#Status as of 2020. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Vanstar
		For creating V-2 sounding rocket. Yes, it's a bit overdue... :)

Neopeius (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gunpowder Mills, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New York and Georgia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it still does not make sense. contract value is not consistent with the number of ships built.

what exactly does your source state? can you add an explanation to the article to explain the discrepancy? 158.181.81.216 (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of factors causing discrepancies among the price per ship. The first was negotiations based on differing abilities of the various firms to manufacture ships. Some firms required greater investment costs while others could use existing facilities. Wartime requirements for speed of production reduced cost comparisons which might have been emphasized in peacetime. The second was actual production. Some contractors easily built the contracted numbers, while others had not completed the specified number of ships when contracts were cancelled when the war ended. The cited sources specify the builders of the indicated number blocks plus listing the numbers not built because contracts were cancelled. Thewellman (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what about 382-401. the table now says they went to consolidated, but those units were produced by brown.

the table also claim 563-589 in hingham cost $155m. that would be a lot of overtime. 158.181.81.216 (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My source states DE 382-401 were produced by Consolidated. Do you have a source stating otherwise? I can offer no explanation for these costs beyond the observation of a great-uncle who served as a Rhode Island state legislator that armaments production in New England has been notoriously corrupted by political figures. And recalling the hardships arising from political corruption, I hope your energy supply situation may be resolved before cold weather arrives. Thewellman (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia says so about 382-401 and everything referenced by those pages.

the hingham contract for $155m should go till 632. then it would make sense cost-wise. there are also plenty of produced APDs in the 590-632 range.

the 110m and 42m contracts for consolidated also make no sense.

110/24=4.6 42/12=3.5

that is just too much of a difference. the contract for consolidated may have been 114-152. then the cost makes sense. for the 42m contract a few more ships of the canceled range would make the figure right.

i think your source is just as confused as we are. if you agree that it may be, then i will express my doubts and possible explanations about canceled ranges in the article. 158.181.81.216 (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morison supports the Wikipedia information you mentioned regarding the range of hull numbers contracted to Brown vs Consolidated, and I've revised the hull number ranges to include the APDs as you suggested. Another possibility for the Hingham contract would be if it included some portion of the work on ships credited to the Boston Naval Shipyard. The two shipyards are only about 20 km apart within a bay sheltered by headlands. Thewellman (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

tim colton, who is usually well-informed, states something like this for 9 ships transferred from Dravo to Consolidated

http://shipbuildinghistory.com/shipyards/emergencylarge/consolidatedorange.htm

which changes the ship price for dravo combined from 3.6m to 2.4m which is fine, so it appears he is right, even though he states no source (which is very retarded for somebody who does what he does).

i am also fine with hingham now, as one contract is for 48 ships in 22 months and the other is for 70 ships in 36 month and the long contract is later with a presumed number of factors causing streamlined production. so there is no need for an under the shelf transfer to make sense of the hingham numbers.

regardless i will add explanatory notes, once i thought it through some more. 158.181.81.216 (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it would be nice if you could add your sources with exact quotation. for example to make it clear whether a source says hingham was assigned these ships, or was assigned this range which includes those cancelled ships. because if a source already states the cancelled ships were assigned then there is no need to explain that the cancelled ships may have been originally assigned for the contract value to make sense. 158.181.81.216 (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral Murray was a very important WW2 Admiral and he is hoping to get to FA status in the next month. Could you please review the article and suggest improvements of any sort (we think it is pretty good already but an experienced second opinion is super helpful). Thanks Friendofleonard (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. On the page Arsenal of Democracy, i found you as being the one who added the list of manufacturers. The list contains some obvious inaccuracies and it would be nice to add more information (the dollar amount). i don't have access to the source document. if you are interested to help out... Nowakki (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I no longer have access to that source. It was found in the estate of an individual who worked in the military hardware manufacturing business thru the cold war. After transferring summarized information useful to Wikipedia, I donated the book to a local library who sold it. I was surprised by some absences from this list; but remembering that the United States military cannot pass an audit in peacetime, I'm sure any compilation of wartime military expenditures will have errors. It is important to note this list is specific to the period between June 1940 and September 1944. The absence of the last year of hostilities may be significant; because many military contracts were cancelled following the war, and including settlement costs or differentiating time of payment versus time of production may be difficult. Another factor is the contracts these companies may have had for operating ordnance plants or providing parts for weapons assembled by other contractors or navy shipyards. I doubt the effort required to determine the actual dollars awarded to major contractors between these or other dates would be a productive endeavor; but it might be useful to subsequently include sourced comparisons of missing manufacturers with one or more listed manufacturers with a description of these confusing factors to illustrate the differences you mention. Thewellman (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few big errors. Consolidated Steel and Permanente Metals were shipbuilders during the war.

As for the subcontractor problem, i think there is no problem. General Motors, first in the list, produced a lot of parts (diesel engines), but they produced no ships. Subcontractors are listed according to how much money they were given to produce their parts. The dollar amount of a shipbuilder would not include the cost of engines built by another company.

If the data was available it could be checked against other sources. I know of a couple of companies where all of their contracts in great detail were put into the record of some Senate hearing and supposedly the authors of this book would list the same figure. Once you have looked at a few examples, the methods to arrive at the values should become clear.

Shipbuilding companies for example produced the yards at "Cost only". They made no profit erecting the facilities, and they also were not stuck at the end of the war with shipyards, but no customers in a saturated market. That was the only way the government could entice private companies to cooperate. This is all documented somewhere, not hard to find. Contracts for ships were also often cost+fee and it is exactly stated how much it cost to build the product and how much profit was made, because the workings of the company were audited and the companies were operating government-owned plants, instead of the usual way where a company submits a bid and gets to keep everything that is left over. Nowakki (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we take this discussion to the article talk page. Thewellman (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Newfoundland (island), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pup.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw at User:Thewellman/Library that you have access to Edward Lewis' book on the St. Johnsbury and Lamoille County Railroad. Does he address at all the disposition of the Burlington and Lamoille Railroad's line between Cambridge/Jeffersonville and Cambridge Junction? I've seen anecdotal evidence that operation persisted after the Central Vermont abandoned the branch in 1938. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't thinking when I edited the page and thought that "can" was used as a verb. Removing can didn't really fix anything if that was the problem and I'm not sure what I was thinking. Sorry for that. TophatGuy14 (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The English language has many words with multiple meanings, and that number seems to be increasing as old words acquire meanings very different than original use. I often feel like a dinosaur for using obsolete conventions when editing text. Thewellman (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tackling the Saint John River merger. Merging articles like that can be tough sometimes. Masterhatch (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]