User talk:Tomasz Prochownik

Hello, Tomasz Prochownik, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help How to write a great article Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there.

Heron's turbine?
Well, Tomasz, it depends on how you define a turbine, doesn't it. Would you call a rotary crop-sprayer a turbine? Heron's affair worked the same way, except for the steam jets spraying tangentially. Taqi al Din's and della Porta's device played the jet in a fixed direction on rotary blades, so it comes closer to a turbine except that it had no casing to concentrate the flow and must have wasted an awful lot of steam around the sides. Anyway you've stimulated me to clarify. ThanksJohn of Paris 07:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tomasz Prochownik 07:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)It appears u have forced my hand here. I personnaly dont think that any these early devices really classify as turbines since one defintion for steam turbine is "A device for converting energy of high-pressure steam (produced in a boiler) into mechanical power which can then be used to generate electricity" But since you have decided to list tariq machine as a stream turbine, a very rudimentary one at best, then Heron's would aslo qualify by the definition of simple steam turbine being "A steam turbine extracts the energy of pressurized superheated steam as mechanical movement". or " turbine in which steam strikes blades and makes them turn."  Either way Heron's machine satisfies these definition of a steam turbine.  Lastly i list Herons machine as a turbine because other encyclopedias, ie Britannica, have listed it as a turbine, not to mention there are alot of books that list it as one as well.  Tomasz Prochownik 07:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tomasz Prochownik 07:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)So i have decided to change the steam turbine page back to what it was not only because Heron's machine does qualify as a turbine by the very def.'s given for turbines. but because i have made some changes again i have decided to list more refernces stating that Heron's machine  is a the first steam turbine.  There are other countless credible websites and books that list Heron's machine as an early turbine, i just havent listed them all because it would take up large amounts of space, but that just reinforces my opinion.  Please take the time to look over my sources.  I guess what am sayin is that ur gonna need more then one source to back up ur claim, and credible ones.  Pleas respond when u have the time.  I find this topin really interesting, and i wanna have more details about ur opinion on the subject.Tomasz Prochownik 07:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, only just found your latest post. Ah, the weight of Authority... Well the first thing as to sources, I can only quote Richard Dawkins here: "Science doesn't work by vote and it doesn't work by authority". For me what this implies at the very least is the necessity of exercising critical judgement in choosing your sources, which gives me a problem with WP NPOV and NPR, because if you can't find satisfactory recent sources (or only "quotes - of quotes - of quotes...), you have to try and dig up the original (usually only one), which is time-consuming research or as I did for the Newcomen engine, go and spend a whole day watching the Black Country Museum replica at work, taking photos and talking to the guy who designed it and the guy who was working it. I came back with bits of crucial information I had never found in any publication dating from over the last 200 years (except David Hulse's booklet), because to build the replica they they had to go as far as possible to the original sources. So as you see mine is not a neutral approach and entails some personal research or at least personal investigation, but anyone can contact the museum and check my facts, so in a way I have given my source of information (and only one in plethora of others) and what is more, put a report on a couple of WP talk pages. If WP is meant only as a collection of library scrapings, exluding all personal initiative, then I think I will out. As for the turbine question, haven't you noticed that for a turbine to work you nornally direct a jet from a fixed nozzle onto blades mounted around the circumference of a moveable wheel or axis, preferable surrounded by a casing? These could perhaps be criteria for a definition of the word "turbine" (perhaps better than the one you give) in which case the eolipyle would not qualify; well I suppose you could still call it a rotary reaction device, but it had no practical use as far as anyone can see except to demonstrate a principle - not bad already. The other problem is that the original source information on it is very vague and no original drawing exists. All the drawings of the eolipyle we are now familiar with were done much later. So we have to keep a balanced view of it.--John of Paris 10:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A note about linking
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Accurizer (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The same applies when you delete content. Please make proposals on talk pages first rather than blanking paragraphs, remember to fill in an edit summary, and remember to sign your posts. .. dave souza, talk 08:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Project History of Science
Tomasz,

I notice that you've been working to clean up extravagant claims of precursors of modern ideas in some articles related to the History of Science. You might want to become a member of Project History of Science. The people there are generally helpful and can provide some ideas about what a good article in the History of Science should look like. Thanks for your efforts.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Optics
Please see the discussion at Talk:Optics.--Srleffler (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[In reply to your comment on my talk page]:
 * Check back there. I wrote a reply. It takes time to write something thoughtful! I moved the discussion because changes to the text of an article are best discussed on that article's talk page, not on user talk pages. That way multiple editors can more easily participate and other editors with an interest in the subject can join in.
 * It wasn't about "settling the dispute", it was about starting a conversation.
 * By the way, when you post on talk pages (but not in articles), you need to sign your comment, so people know who wrote what. You do that by putting four tilde characters (" ~ ") in a row at the end of your post. When you save the page, the software automatically converts this into your username and the time. --Srleffler (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Credible author
Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.

Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, Al-Haytham. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Eeekster (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don't want you deletions reverted, please say something in the edit summary. That's what it is there for. Eeekster (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

i know i have a terrible habit of not doing that, but this time i have posted some comments so hopefully that should be enough, if you have any objections to my edits am always open to discussion, am actually hoping i could get someone to help me clean up this history of thermodynamics page because there is a lot of stuff listed their that is utterly pointless, i.e. ideas on vacuums hopefully you can offer some help

Re: more worthless contributions
Thanks for finally revealing your true agenda on my talk page. I always suspected that you held an ethnocentric (or more specifically Eurocentric) agenda of some kind, because your edits and comments suggest to me that you would probably do anything to uphold this agenda, even if it means removing reliably-sourced material, misreading and misrepresenting what the source actually states, personally attacking your opponents to discourage them from adding anything that opposes your agenda, and resorting to nonsensical polemics that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Seriously, what are you even trying to get at by saying your civilization is the greatest? Do you honestly think I even care? Even if it were, what on Earth does this have to do with the topic at hand? Stop wasting your time trying to read my mind and instead try concentrating on the topic. In the cited source, Biruni never says heat is caused by the moon being in contact with the air, but he clearly states that "it becomes heated in consequence of the movement and friction of the parts in contact." Seriously, how how much clearer can it get? And it's not just me who reverted your edit, but another editor (User:Dicklyon) also reverted your edit. If you honestly believe that we are wrong regarding this issue, then explain why at Talk:Timeline of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and random processes instead of resorting to such preachy nonsensical polemics. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)