Talk:Geared turbofan

Unreferenced acronyms
There are a couple of acronyms thrown about this article that aren't explained:


 * LP ("Low Pressure"?)
 * LPT ("Low Pressure Turbine"?)

If indeed "LP" means "Low Pressure", does that mean that the entire turbine section of the engine functions at low pressure? Or, is this a mistake, taken from some other turbine where there are low- and high-pressure sections? Might this be the wrong term altogether? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * And, I just found out. There are two coaxial shafts, the low-pressure shaft (running the input compressor and the final output turbine) and the high-pressure shaft (running the middle two stages at a higher speed). I'll rewrite it accordingly. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 11:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. I also removed quite a bit of redundancy. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagreement on article content: wholesale reversion is not helpful
In late April I found this article to be quite confusing, with a number of unreferenced acronyms (see above) and clear references to missing material. For example, the phrase "the implied tip speeds of the LP turbine and (in this case) IP compressor are relatively low" has several issues: there's no information on what "LP" or "IP" are, and the "(in this case)" clearly refers to a specific model of geared turbofan that isn't elsewhere mentioned in the article, showing that the whole section was probably taken from some other source without a lot of thought. See the revision here, especially the first paragraph of section 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geared_turbofan&oldid=552408315.

On April 28 I rewrote the section, clarifying the acronyms and other terminology, taking out some of the redundancy, and I think making the whole section much clearer. Here are the changes I made: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geared_turbofan&diff=552623889&oldid=552408315.

Unfortunately, on May 2 the editor who inserted the original paragraph (User:Tagremover) reverted my edit, citing "longer variant is better and clearer: Remember: Wikipedia is mainly for non-technicians". There was no effort to retain my many improvements: the presumption was that I'd added no value to the article whatsoever.

I about about to restore my work, and will notify User:Tagremover in order to avoid an edit war. Please: if you have specific concerns about another editor's contributions then address them specifically: throwing out all of their contributions is not helpful. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I give my comment later; your version isn't bad, so no need to hurry. Tagremover (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)