User talk:ClemRutter/Archives/2010/February

Beam engine
Hi. Are you working on a new lede for beam engine, or better, a section on its principles of operation that we can quote in the lede?

Some "industrial archaeology" reveals that muggins here was responsible for much of that lede text -- clearly towards the end of a very late night editing session -- although it was based on the text present from the article's creation (several paragraphs in the article remain which are largely unaltered from day one). Since then my editing has developed somewhat, and WP gets very little new content from me, so I wouldn't write some of the more POVish stuff now -- I'd find different words to say the same thing! However, it has now been there for nearly three years...

I suspect that I tackled the article because it essentially only covered atmospheric engines and needed to cover Watt's/Cornish/Bull types and the many variations of rotative engine, plus -- much to my surprise -- the existence of non- steam-driven types. I would agree that its operating principle is not just a first class lever, but the Newcomen (and similar) type is certainly 'class 1' (albeit with a mechanical advantage of 1) other forms of engine may be different classes of lever.

I have no texts that describe "a beam engine" separate from the familiar types of steam engine, and certainly none of the 4/5 books consider the existence of non- steam-powered types. If I write from my sources, what I write will be biased towards the information available from them, even if I 'know' that the scope of the article is wider. Worse still, I'm a software engineer, and the last time I did any mechanical 'physics' was for my A-level, several decades ago -- someone else can polish the terminology I get wrong!

Not cross, just asking for help... -- EdJogg (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That gave me a good laugh. I posted the whole thing hoping-the expert who had made the last post- would do the work. I haven't a clue about the damn things save for what I found in Richard Hills text, Power from Steam 1989. I am sure it is fairly basic- leave it a few days and I will see if anything turns up, I am at the moment heavily writing articles to remove the red links from Lancashire Cotton and Lancashire Cotton Corporation and I am always getting distracted D.D Collier p17 of Gurr and Hunts Cotton Mills if Oldham mentions the Buckley and Taylor, constructing massive 2500HP Mc Naught Engines in 1899, that might give a lead-- but another thought-- Hills p158 describes a McNaughted engine as having HP and LP on opposite sides  of the fulcrum- HP being the same side as load-- thus a a lever of the ?2nd order- but the LP acting as a 1st order--- speak in a few days. --ClemRutter (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

--ClemRutter (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * -animation
 * - good text
 * -intro page with live links
 * -description of motion


 * Having seen the above, I thought I'd Google for "water-powered beam engine", and I found this:
 * http://www.aidan.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=698&highlight=beam+pump
 * ...which would seem to have been installed after steam beam engines came into operation, so however the 'beam engine' article is written, this sort of thing must be taken into consideration!
 * Strikes me that our findings would be better stored on the article talk page...
 * EdJogg (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine. I was was leaving that until embarrassing ramblings had progressed to being coherent thoughts. So to add to the collection- it appears that Cornish Beam Engines- refer to the motion, which is not constant in the way that a Mill Engine needed to be. My own article Buckley & Taylor is quite useful in describing later engines. I am not sure that we have got the article structure right- I was musing on that without conclusions. We do need far more on how the things work- Cornish- and Cornish rotative- Simple mill engines... how does condensing fit in? Compounding McNaughts...// Disjointed thoughts everyone


 * waterwheel powered twin beam pump in the reference above is not a beam engine but as it says a beam pump similar to a Nodding donkey used in the oil fields in our former colonies. It is a waterwheel used to power some equipment- in this case a force pump.


 * I have started a thread in talk page where we can continue.--ClemRutter (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Then I found this Watkins Mount Sion Bleachworks, Radcliffe Beam Pump. --ClemRutter (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an earlier picture of the same one I discovered. Sad if it's just been left to rot since then.
 * OK, that is likely called a beam pump, but surely it is technically a water-powered beam engine? -- in the same way that a Newcomen engine could be called a steam-powered beam pump?
 * I've seen the new thread at beam engine. The chronological structure obviously makes sense, but we need to avoid duplicating too much that is (or should be) in History of the steam engine. The beam engine page only needs to provide summaries for all the other types.
 * EdJogg (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:CS RestorationHouseRochester SWDecliner.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:CS RestorationHouseRochester SWDecliner.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Files in your User Space
Hey there ClemRutter, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:ClemRutter/sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Lancashire Cotton Photographs
I'm happy to restore them for you- I'll get around to them when I find a spare few minutes. Sorry about the delay... J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have restored all which were not already restored, apart from File:Cedar Mill, Ashton 0001.png, File:Atlas Mill, Ashton 0000.png, File:Rock Mill, Ashton 0007.png, File:Texas Mill, Ashton 0018.png and File:Tudor Mill, Ashton 0009.png, as according to the deletion logs, there was never an image at those locations. Could you double check those were the right names? In the mean time, you're going to have to remove the deletion notices from those images, make sure they're in use in an article and update the rationales appropriately. Out of interest, do you have much knowledge of the cotton mills that are in the modern-day Lancashire? I've just started up Portal:Lancashire (which is very bare bones, as I am first populating Portal:Cumbria) and some cotton mill stuff would be a great addition... J Milburn (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Restored. Feel free to ping me if I can be of further help (or if I missed one...) J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Restored. Remember to fix the rationales as appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Restored. Ditto :) J Milburn (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Restored. Please remember that these fair use claims are really only valid if the buildings have been demolished. And, for what it's worth, I'm in Bailrigg now- small world :) J Milburn (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)