User talk:Tvbanfield

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 19:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Beauvais
I read your comment on the talk page of Beauvais. I did follow the link to the French version of the page but didn't look to see whether or not the information you provided was from that Wikipedia or not. If you can find a source online (or if it is translated from the French which presumably has a source online), I see no problem with adding that information... :) Hurrah 03:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. The reference to the French Wiki has only to do with the underground problems with the parking lot. The rest is based on my personal observations and notes made while visiting the Cathedral -- and my personal photographs.Tvbanfield 19:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Models
Greetings,

I see that a few of your edits from a few months ago link to images that cannot be found, notably Image:Model-Belle-Poule-1828.jpg and Image:Model English Galleon.jpg; as an admin, I checked the logs and could not find relevant uploads that would have been deleted. Do you have any idea what could cause this ? I would be delighted to see these photographs, as you seem to have valuable items.


 * Rama: The file history shows that Polarys deleted the image of La Belle Poule on 14 June 2007 because "not edited for 9 days." That I don't understand. I re-uploaded the photo today, so you can see it on the discussion page of La Belle Poule 1828.

Regarding the Belle-Poule, in particular, I tried to take advantage of the model on display at the naval museum in Paris, but the conditions were less than ideal, so better details and overall views would be much appreciated, if you find the time and leisure to do so.


 * Rama: While I was refurbishing my model, I was living at Trocadero in Paris just down the hill from the Naval Museum in Paris. I would go to the museum several times a week, either to research in their library or to check our some detail on their splendid large scale model -- so that my model would be accurate, to the extent allowed by the scale, my skills and materials. So I know it well, but was not allowed to take photos at that time. I will also re-upload the photo of my English Galleon today. If there is a way to use e-mail I could send you additional more detailed photos of my models.

Thanks for your contributions and cheers ! Rama (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me. Tvbanfield (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Belated thank you
Thank you for the image at Battle of Rennell Island. I haven't been able to find a place for it in the article, but I haven't given up trying to squeeze it into the text somewhere. Cla68 (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

HMS Triumph (1562)
I have responded to your query on the talk.page for the Triumph, confirming that your identification of 1562 as the year that this ship was launched is correct. Please see my comments there. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Tons burthen
Hello The entire discussion of Bm or BOM confuses me and I am sure many others. In the BOM equation, the denominator (94 or 95 or 100) was taken to be the "standard" volume in cubic feet of a standard "tun". The numerator variables also yield a number in cubic feet. The resulting BOM was then in units of standard "tuns". What this means in practice is that one could pile deck after deck above the hold without changing the BOM at all. The number 94 seems to have come into use as a standard in the latter 17th century. BOM has not a thing to do with weight. This is as simple as I can make it - I don't know why all of the previous discussion need be so confusing. John Winkler 209.6.122.45 (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * To John Winkler.


 * I agree that the units of the numerator yield a number in cubic feet and that the unit of the denominator is cubic feet per ‘tun’, i.e. the weight of 100 cubic feet of sea water is a “tun.” Therefore the resulting BOM is a weight in “tuns.”
 * Yes, it is that simple, but other WIKI editors won’t accept this confusing historical truth.


 * Before going any further into this confusing topic, please take a look at Reference 2 That article written by marine consultant Rodney Stone Pearn, starts out with the statement: “Tonnage' broadly is a measure of a ship's size which can be expressed in terms of either volume or weight”.He goes on describing how tonnage was measured initially as a fraction of ship displacement, i.e.  a weight measurement, and later shifted to a volumetric measurement.
 * Yes, whether you use the old measurement system or the new system, you could stack cargo above the hold and not have to pay duty on it. But then the ship would capsize.
 * If you wish, we can continue this discussion in private by e-mail at tvbanfield@gmail.com--Tvbanfield (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Tvbanfield. Could you look at this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships. It could benefit from your knowledge. Wikipedia is inconsistent and at times erroneous in the various measures of ship size and mass, and this discussion may provide a start towards correcting that. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

To Kablammo

I too have been troubled with the inconsistencies and errors but never found the time or courage to sort it all out. BRAVO for your efforts. I agree with many of your suggestions and will be glad to help if I can. Here are a some of my preliminary thoughts:

First of all, I think we should deal with the word burthen. If you search Wiki for burthen, it takes you to Builder's Old Measurement, [an article that I wrote] which, as of yesterday, included the statement: "The first tax on the hire of ships in England was levied by King Edward I in 1303 based on tons of burthen (burden)."

Since then, I have added "burden, nautical" to the article on burden, and changed the above statement to read:

…based on tons of burthen (an arcaic term for burden).

So at least now burden is now in Wiki,, but maybe we also need burthen and tons burthen.

I did a Wiki search for tons burthen" and got 6746 results! Archaic or not, this expression is of very broad use, perhaps because the prime references show the tonnage as "tons burthen." If so, burthen'' deserves to be recognized by having its own article in WIKI. What to you think?

As much as it would be great to symplify things and declare certain terms obsolete, we have to consider the multitudes of sources written centuries ago [mostly English or British] that use the old terms and have become prime references. For example, I looked up HMS Triumph on WIKI, because there were 6 of them from 1562 to 1938. The first four, 1562, 1698, 1764 & 1870, show "tons burthen" and the last two, 1903 & 1938 use "displacement." I think it should be kept that way – to the extent that it is consistent with the source references.

So, I agree with you as to better use of Wikilinks, and to come up with a consistent policy. After the policy is established, necessary changes or conversions can be left as requests to the assigned administrators.

That is all I can offer for now, but I'm willing to participate as things develop.

Regards, tvbanfield--67.175.193.194 (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Tvbanfield. Please see my note on the talkpage for Builder's Old Measurement and elsewhere. You seem to be confused between burthen tonnage (which is a volumetric measurement of a ship's cubic capacity) and displacement (which is a weight measurement defined by the weight of water displaced by the ship's hull at various stages of loading. Kindly do not confuse the two. Also note that there is no possible metric equivalent of burthen tonnage, precisely because the burthen is NOT a measurement of weight. Rif Winfield (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 7 Feb 2012 to Rif Winfield

I wish you would have checked with me before you revised the Builders Old Measurement (BOM) article, because I’m convinced that the BOM formula is a weight measurement, not a volumetric measurement. I have always been very sensitive to the difference and have tried very hard not to confuse them.

The logic behind the BOM measurement is that it attempts to calculate the fraction of the ship’s displacement attributed to the cargo, which would necessarily be measured in tons of sea water. BOM assumes that, on average, the taxable cargo would occupy 3/5 of the ships total displacement. The ship’s total displacement would be the length x beam x draft measured at the waterline, then multiplied by the coefficient, that corrects for the underwater shape of the hull (a coefficient now called the Block Coefficient, Cb)

BOM makes the following simplifying assumptions:

a.	The hull shape below the waterline has a Block Coefficient of 0.62. b.	The draft is ½ the breadth c.	The cargo weight capacity is 3/5 of the displacement d.	Waterline length is approximated as overall length of hull minus 3/5 of breadth. e.	The density of sea water is 35 cubic ft. per ton.

Now where does the number 94 come from?

BOM take the constants of 3/5 and .62 and puts them all below the line along with the 35 cu ft per ton: The arithmetic is:

5/3 x  1/.62 x 35 = 94

The units in the formula are cu ft above the line, and cu ft per ton below the line, resulting in TONS of displacement caused by the cargo.

All of this logic is well explained in my reference:

http://www.simsl.com/Publications/Articles/Articles/Tonnage.asp

If you wish, we can continue this discussion in private by e-mail at tvbanfield@gmail.com

Regards,--Tvbanfield (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dr. Theresa A. Dankovich (January 6)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dr. Theresa A. Dankovich and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Dr._Theresa_A._Dankovich Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Dr._Theresa_A._Dankovich reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 Onel 5969  TT me 18:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Dr. Theresa A. Dankovich concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Dr. Theresa A. Dankovich, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Response concerning USS Thresher and its buoyancy in the disaster
Some years back, you made a comment on the USS Thresher talk page about Bruce Rule's alternative theory for its sinking and the fact that he hadn't discussed its buoyancy. Well, some IP editor has recently updated the article on this subject, and given that, I thought it was appropriate to for me give a proper response to your claim; some statements made in the intervening years shed a bit more light on things. So I thought I should give you a ping. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thresher buoyancy
Thank you for alerting me to this update. My beef on the Rule theory was that there was no explanation on why Thresher lost buoyancy. Now he says that Thresher wasn't practicing rigorous buoyancy control. As hard as that is for me to believe, at least now there is an explanation. Then he offers that the hull becomes less buoyant getting heavier by 1000 lbs every 100 ft. of depth. I had not heard of that before (maybe because the nuclear sub I served on did not go below 700 ft.)

Reading further into Rule's letter of 10 April 2013, (Ref (22)) he describes a 2 minute period (0909 to 0911) of frequency instability and then failure of the non-vital bus. WOW! This is why the main collant pumps stopped causing the reactor to scram. This is why the Thresher sank! But there is no explanation what might have caused this frequency instability. He goes on to say that during the period between 1959 to 2007 when Rule was monitoring SOSUS he never heard of any frequency instability of a nuclear sub's power supply. We need an analysis by an expert electrical engineer as to what could have have caused such a frequency instability.Tvbanfield (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)