Talk:Steam ejector

The article needs tidying up, to put the mathematical bits in the later paras into proper formats, and to insert correct referencing and links.

It also needs a bit of clarification and perhaps some context to explain typical situations in which ejectors are used, especially, but not exclusively, steam locomotive vacuum brake ejectors.

Sangwine 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Aspirator
This article has already been merged once into Aspirator and all additions since then should have been on that page. Any comments (or volunteers) before I have a go? --Moonraker88 14:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, an objection. Aspirator is not a term that would be recognised by people looking for the steam ejector (especially a locomotive component). The reason "all additions since then should have .." has been ignored is that the article doesn't redirect to aspirator, I guess. I don't think it hurts to have an article dedicated to the Steam Ejector. By all means add a link to Aspirator so that people can see the similarity, but do not remove this article or redirect it to aspirator unless you rewrite the aspirator article to be more general.

BTW if you plan to merge an article, flag it up first with the appropriate markup and wait long enough for people to discuss the plan.Sangwine 22:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Sangwine 22:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right about the merge tag — I hadn't done it this time because the process had been gone through once before. It did redirect, though, until someone broke it!


 * "Rewrite to make Aspirator more general": my plan was make the steam ejector stuff already in that piece into a separate section and to merge in the content of this article. Perhaps we should take the completely opposite tack: quietly accept that a demerge has taken place and move the steam stuff back here! As before, all views welcome.--Moonraker88 22:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Afterthought (and change of mind): The first time I looked for "Ejector" and found it only as a redirect to the Aspirator page (where it wasn't fully dealt with) I was a bit disappointed. The articles should remain separate and this one improved in line with Sangwine's suggestion in the article history above. --Moonraker88 23:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)