User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2011 September

Unblock request for IPadWanderer now raised at AN/I
I don't know how this process works. Is there anything that I am required to do for this? -- Geek2003 (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No. You're uninvolved aren't you 8-)   Probably worth watching the AN/I thread and possibly chipping in if you're accused of witchcraft and there's a demand to have you publically burned. On the whole though, AN/I works best the less of it there is.  Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but honestly I am not ipad, and when I read his edits his writing style is totally different from mine. BTW I am over loaded with just trying to locate the information and copy edit the pages to rescue a few of the many that Allen has put up for afd.  Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.  Got to go to work later. -- Geek2003 (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Editing other editors' comments in AfD
Edits of other editors' entries (such as those in Articles for deletion/Cloud engineering) are violations of policy. Please revert them and instead leave comments under those you have issues with. You can ask an editor to change what they wrote but please do not make changes for them. Joja lozzo  20:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Then don't double-!vote on AfDs, and it won't be necessary to. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A) Two wrongs .... B) I didn't count it as double voting since you asked us to reconsider based on the reverted version of the page. C) I speak on behalf of other editors as well. D) What you have done definitely crosses the line. Joja  lozzo  21:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you know where AN/I is. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to puff this up into something more than it is and waste administrators' time . It's not like an admin will count up the votes anyway. It's consensus we're looking for and editing other editors' input is not going to get us there. I don't think we're even on opposite sides of the issue with this article so please let's not make this into more than it is. Joja  lozzo  22:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Opposite sides of which question? Whether cloud engineering is yet a notable topic with a literature we can draw from (for it surely will be, given a year or two that might already have passed)?  Or whether this is a badly-skewed AfD from the outset? Deleting 3/4 of an article and all its references immediately before an AfD is not something I ever see as appropriate behaviour, no matter whether I support the article or not. Nor is getting Delete onto the page three times, when it's only one editor supporting the nominator. There is judgement and there is process, and I hope I will always favour judgement over process, but we know just how much of a clap-o-meter these !votes are in practice, and I really don't like attempts to game the system. They're either wrong, or they're unecessary - neither is a good thing, because it erodes the practice of policy for those times when we will need to rely on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I invite you to refer to the edit logs where I listed policies violated by the author in creating the article, which was essentially an WP:ADVERT for themselves, their blog, their original research (including the image), their panels at conferences, etc. Was there a deleted source that you considered an WP:RS? -- samj in out 23:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't even read the original article and its sources properly yet, which is why I haven't re-!voted. However such sources, good or bad as they are, should still be presented for those at the AfD to make a judgement upon. For a discipline in its current clearly immature state, I would expect conferences to be one of the most significant sources of information (this is after all why we pay their attendance fees), no matter what some Wikihobbyist thinks to them.
 * Nor do I see the origin of an article to be as important as the end result. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, I would second User:Jojalozzo's request that you not edit others' comments — I think it was pretty clear that this was my proposal given the continuity, and I wanted to suggest a merge. -- samj in out 23:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

/* The steam cycle */ Carnot heat flow is isothermal! 86.181.114.173 (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
< The stages referred to in the steam engine article are the isentropic stages, not the isothermal ones. >

You have this back to front. Boiling and condensation happen at constant temperature. In an ideal expander/turbine, such as is assumed in the Carnot cycle, the expansion is isentropic.

See also the 'Rankine Cycle' article.

86.181.114.173 (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I see what you're getting at. You're right here, it's the isothermal process that's intended, although in any steam engine (that isn't delivering saturated steam at 100C) this is far from an isothermal process.
 * Your change is an improvement and a correction, but I just don't think this is a good paragraph. It's unclear (practical engines barely use Rankine cycles, let alone Carnot), it's very unclear to the lay reader and I'd even question whether it belongs at all in our top-level article on steam engines?
 * Do you fancy re-writing it from scratch? You've evidently got some knowledge of thermodynamics, so do you think you can rewrite it (and I suggest a blank-paper start) to be both accessible to the lay reader, and to tie in to the theoretical cycles? As it is, it's not really doing either, because there's little isothermal about steam engines, in any component. I think it would be better to end up too simple than too high-faluting - we could even drop reference to the Carnot cycle and simply rely on the Rankine cycle article to lead to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, seven minutes after your post yesterday this paragraph was exactly where I first found it - after a total of FOUR reversions. I've edited again - if this one does not stick, I'd rather watch paint dry, frankly, then spend more time here. As for a re-write, the baseline Rankine cycle is taught as approximating the Carnot cycle because it does: boiling and condensation are isothermal: remember that the (baseline, again) cycle has no superheating. It's only the two sentences on pumping that rather miss the point, in my view. Regards. 86.176.198.185 (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Heck
Response on my talk page.--ClemRutter (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Further response on my talk page.--ClemRutter (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

History of the steam engine edit
The recent edit I made to the history of the steam engine is an example of removing trivia. However, you restored it with a checkin noting something about primacy.

From what I can tell, this design was essentially unknown even 25 miles outside its own location, consists of nothing more than two Newcomen cylinders attached to a single boiler, and was of no import in terms of power, operation or any other feature.

So, can you clarify what primacy this engine had, and why this is not, as I believe it is, no different than the hundreds of other minor improvements made that are also not worthy of mention?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, this article is the history of the steam engine, not just the simple operation of the steam engine, so we should take a historical perspective, not just filter on the basis of innovations that remained evident in the latest engines. Polzunov's engine is important in this sense because it's an early steam engine development outside its usually recognised location in Britain.
 * Its technical innovations should be restricted to those that are clearly documented in uncontroversial sources - there are Russian sources that tenuously claim all manner of additional firsts. The best known of these confirmed ones would be the use of two cylinders, which just in itself is reason to include it here. More importantly though, this was also the first engine to have any sort of mechanical shaft output, something that Watt wouldn't achieve usefully for nearly twenty years. That's an even better reason to include it - it's certainly far from "trivial", as you describe it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)d


 * Actually both of these have precedent. Worchester's engine had two cylinders "on paper" and all of Savery's models copied this. More to the point, Leopold's high-pressure engine of 1720 not only used two cylinders in exactly the same fashion as the Polzunov layout, and even used the same style of valving the steam into the cylinders. This pre-dates Polzunov's design by almost half a century. As to rotary motion, Branca's steam-wheel dates to 1629 (ignoring the aerophile, of course), Papin wanted to turn a water wheel in 1707, and Jonathan Hull had a patent on the crank for steam engines in 1736, specifically to power boats. Meanwhile, from the illustrations I have seen, Polzunov's device was not rotary, but oscillatory, but simply used two geared wheels instead of a beam. Unfortunately, none of the references in the Polzunov article are available online, and he's not even mentioned in most of the sources I have on steam. Do you have any good references that clearly demonstrate something about the Polzunov design that  predates the invention and use of a similar concept on another device? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * So are you suggesting that the history of an invention be replaced by unbuilt ideas and paper sketches? On that basis, the gas turbine dates from 1781 (also pre-dating Watt's practical rotative work).
 * The point about Polzunov is that it may have led nowhere after his death, but at the time it did represent real engines that were actually constructed and did real work. This is part of the history of the steam engine. I don't know if the output was rotating or semi-rotary - I've seen Russian sources that seem to discuss ratchets, but I don't speak Russian myself and my Russian translator isn't mechanically skilled enough to judge the subtleties in such detail (Andrey Nartov is a similar problem - he invented significant parts of the rose engine, but per Wiki he invented the entire lathe cross-slide itself). What is clear though, and historically important, is that Polzunov was the first to construct a real working engine with shaft output, that could then be coupled to potentially any machine. Many workers, including Watt, were chasing after rotating "steam wheels" to achieve the same goal, yet failed. This is distinct from the water-returning engine. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

What is clear though, and historically important, is that Polzunov was the first to construct a real working engine with shaft output But that is exactly what is not clear. I cannot find a single reference that talks about this rotating shaft you keep mentioning. What I can find are images that show the engine is absolutely not using a rotating shaft. Do you have a reliable source for this claim or not? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen an image (period drawing or photographed model) that doesn't show the chain drum. "Shaft power" may indeed be a misnomer here, as the models show paired reciprocating chain drives, not rotating shafts. Note that similar reciprocating chain or wire drives were used over great distances for transmitting water power in late 18th & 19th century America. The point is though, that Polzunov built this as a blowing engine, not a pumping engine, and so the ability to displace power sideways between engine and bellows-house was useful, whether this was shaft or chain.
 * As to references, then there's an easy web link to a piece of pop science from U. Houston,, which is lightweight, but surely answers the issue of Polzunov's basic notability in steam history. For anything more detailed, then Danilevsky's 1940 book should be available as an inter-library loan through a university library and this also appears to have been the source material for the Western books written since. This is one source that's hinting, but unclear, over the "ratchet" issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My edit was lost for some reason, I have re-removed the section and added notes as to why on the article talk page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am in favour of restoring the Polzunov paragraph, because it is interesting and relevant.  Arrivisto (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cumbrian Coast Line
Just thought I would let you know that per your comments in this discussion, we already have a routebox at Cumbrian Coast Line RDT. I am not sure if you were aware of this when you made the comment to convert it to a routebox. Frietjes (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, let's go with that one then. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Plenum Chamber
I disagree with your introductory definition: "A plenum chamber is a pressurised housing containing a gas or fluid (typically air) at positive pressure (pressure higher than surroundings).". In relation to motor vehicles, a plenum (aka "airbox") is simply a reservoir of air between the air-filter and the carburetor (or equivalent); and the main reason for this reservoir is to ensure sufficient air is available for acceleration. If the filter were immediately before the carburetor, on acceleration the engine would be starved of air, and the fuel-air mix would be unnecessarily enriched. It follows that, for air to be drawn through the air-filter the pressure in the plenum will normally be lower than atmospheric pressure, so it is thus not generally true that "a plenum is a pressurised housing". Sometimes the vehicles air-intakes will be arranged to give a ram-air effect which could raise plenum pressure above ambient atmospheric pressure, but in this situation a standard carburetter (which relies on a venturi effect) might not function properly.
 * Please consider amending the definition, or consider having a discussion on the topic. Arrivisto (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Answered at talk:Plenum chamber Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wobbly-web wheel
I hope you don't mind my minor tweak to your article under construction (saw the title in 'recent changes', and wondered what it was about). Interesting stuff - A photo of a Spitfire wheel might be useful too, I'll see if I can find one if you like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't done any aircraft wheel photos yet, as the weather has been lousy this week and I haven't had a chance to haul something out of the shed. One of the later jet types might be the most obvious. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that might be better - what I'd forgotten is that you can't really see the 'inside' face of a Spit wheel under normal circumstances, the brake disc obscures it (see ). A photo showing the web/wobble from both sides would be better. Do you actually have a shed full of aircraft wheels, or just photos of them? :D AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have sheds full of many things. Some of the things (like the Vulcan nose) have become sheds in their own right. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! Did you buy it on a whim, or are you hoping to acquire the rest of it later? ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It just followed me home one day. Upside down, it makes a nice roof for a garden summerhouse. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pushnell/Voyages of Christopher Columbus
I should have added that we already have an article, see Voyages of Christopher Columbus. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of boilerplate rationales
Hi, Andy. I see you restored some non-free use rationales that I had previously removed from File:Adge Cutler, EP, Scrumpy and Western.jpg. These rationales, provided by the template, say (in part) that the purpose of use is:
 * Main infobox. The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. … The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for.

But this boilerplate rationale doesn't apply to the use of this image in the Scrumpy and Western article (which is an article about a musical genre, not the album in question) or the Adge Cutler article (about a person pictured in the album art, but again not about the album in question). According to WP:NFCCc, non-free use rationales need to be "relevant to each use" of the image, and the rationale provided by is not relevant to uses other than in articles specifically about the album in question. Please note that I am not taking issue with the rationale for the use of this image in Scrumpy & Western EP, which is the article about the album. I'm going to remove the other two rationales again. Please let me know if you still disagree with this decision. —Bkell (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you agree or disagree with the basic acceptability for fair-use under the other two articles? (genre & lead singer) I certainly support it.
 * If you agree with FU on these, or even on one of them, then wouldn't it be more useful to fix the FUR appropriately, rather than removing it? I agree, there is scope to interpret the current template as "too boilerplatey", even though there's already a more detailed rationale passed to the template.


 * If you simply disagree on FU for these two articles, then that's a different question. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with those two uses. The use of this album cover in the article about the musical genre does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the genre, so it fails WP:NFCC. Also, it seems to me that a freely licensed image illustrating the genre could be found or created, so the use of the album cover also fails WP:NFCC. We also do not need to include the album cover in the article about a person who happens to be shown on the cover. See WP:NFCI, which says that cover art can generally be used "for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." There is no critical commentary of this album in the article about Adge Cutler. The image wasn't being used to illustrate the album in that article—it was being used as a photo of Adge Cutler. That seems to me to be similar to the unacceptable use described in WP:NFC#9: "A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover." (Now, furthermore, I also happen to disagree with the use of album covers in articles about the albums, but consensus is against me here, so I'm not going to fight that.) —Bkell (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Pedestrian bridges in Wales
Is there a definition for these? If this category is to be useful to readers (or else why bother?) is there any need to distinguish bridges built for pedestrian traffic (often recent and narrow) and old bridges, like Monnow bridge and Over Bridge that were once major trade routes for horse or carriage traffic, but have now been pedestrianised? Both of these were active road bridges until within the last few decades. There are also rare bridges like Pontypridd where the steepness of the bridge required steps (and thus made wheeled traffic impractical) but were major horse routes. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Raised also at Category talk:Pedestrian bridges Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I hope that this finds you well! In summary: great question! All that I did last night was follow the existing categories/precedents, and create a Welsh-bridge structure. I started this exercise on the back of creating at article for Hengoed Viaduct - a former railway bridge that is now part of National Cycle Route 47. So should it be a railway bridge, or a cycle bridge (a category that doesn't exist, hence the precedent seems to be to use pedestrian bridge as the preferred catageory). I hope that you get an answer to what is a very reasonable question. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Interrupter gear
My last edit to the above is NOT a revert of anything you did - but a return to the state of the article before the mention of the fact that German synchronizers in the 30s and 40s were electric was inserted. This was illiterately worded, and in the wrong section. All I was trying to do was add the information in Wiki fashion. By all means leave it out - not that notable anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)