Talk:Propulsion

Untitled
I don't understand this page. It says "We don't have an article called "Propulsion method", but I got to it by searching for propulsion, and was redirected to "Propulsion method", from which I clicked on "discussion", because under one of the paragraphs, "water propulsion", there is no mention of the method used by fish, which is all I wanted to say.

I do not understand that either.Audio_1 06:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to biuld a balloon car- what does prolsuion haveto do with this??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.113.50.40 (talk • contribs) 14:11, December 17, 2006
 * Replied here. --Geniac 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate reasoning for high-bypass turbofans
"Because of the aerodynamic efficiency of propellers and fans, it is more fuel efficient to accelerate a large mass by a small amount. That is why we find high bypass fans and turboprops on cargo planes and airliners." That is not correct; high bypass fans and turboprops are used because of the aircraft speed; best performance is obtained by matching the engine exhaust speed to the aircraft speed. Only subsonic aircraft use props or high-bypass fans; supersonic aircraft want lower-bypass fans or turbojets with higher-speed exhaust. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Present Propulsion definition excludes gliders
A glider has two propulsion systems : the first one is outboard of the glider (the towing powered aircraft) for climb to altitude. The second is the wing itself, when gliding : the total aerodynamic vector is tilted forward, giving thrust. The present definition, does not include this propulsion mode.Plxdesi2 (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Lead sentence and definition of propulsion
Hi there, I noticed your recent edit to this article. This seems to be a revision of my previous edit. I am respectfully stating that I disagree with you that propulsion is a "process". A process is something that has an end goal, and propulsion is a continuous action (for example, a jet engine producing thrust). Also, there are complex forces involved with some forms of propulsion, so it may not be correct or precise to use the words "pushing" and "pulling". Pushing or pulling is a process in itself, so it does not make sense to write "process of pushing or pulling." I think the words "act of driving forward an object" are more accurate. The word "act" does not imply an end goal like the word "process". Lastly, the sentence is not supported by the content found in its inline citations. I would like to discuss with you before making changes to avoid repetitive editing. Thanks, MrSwagger21 (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're being too picky about the definition of "process" leading to a single result. |Merriam Webster gives the primary definition as simply "progress, advance" or "something going on", and the secondary definition as both for (2a. "a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result" and 2b. "a continuing natural or biological activity or function".
 * Meriam Webster defines |propulsion as both: "the action OR process of propelling". Propelling is defined as "to drive forward or onward by or as if by means of a force that imparts motion".
 * I wanted to make sure to replace "push" with "push or pull" to account for traction as well as pulling.
 * In any event, remember WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.JustinTime55 (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand Wikipedia is not a dictionary; in fact, that was included as part of my edit summary for the edit you changed. I stated, “Changed wording of lead sentence - the word “means” should not be used because Wikipedia is not a dictionary.” However, I agree with the recent change you made stating it is “the action or process of pushing or pulling to drive an object forward” (from Meriam Webster, although it’s ironically a dictionary). I think it’s a good balance; this matter seems to be resolved.


 * And one last thing, please remember to adhere to the WP:Civility and WP:NPA policies. Calling an editor “picky” is not constructive and is commenting on the contributor and not the content, which is not welcome on Wikipedia. Thank you and have a nice day. MrSwagger21 (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)