User talk:Ytrottier/Archives/2006

Hollow structural steel
The preferred method of moving a page's content is to use the move tab (which may or may not be visible with the skin you are using) rather than a copy and paste. Small content shuffles are usually okay but a substantial content (moving a page and move) should have its history go with it. A page moved with the tab achieves this and also allows the articles talk page to go with it (which admittedly doesn't matter in this case).

This cut and paste move can be remedied although it will require some extra steps as you have now created the Hollow structural section page and it will need to be deleted first (with the new contents copied to a safe location first), the old page can then be restored and moved (with the tab) to the now empty slot, and your new edits incorporated back in. This will achieve exactly what you have already, but with the full contributors history available. &mdash; Graibeard 23:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, It's a big wiki and there are a lot of guidelines to keep track of, cut 'n' paste was one of the first mistakes I made so you're not alone; and yes, I'll let you off with a warning (as you put it :-) I don't mind fixing the page move so I'll tackle it a bit later. Happy editing! &mdash; Graibeard 01:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yawning Tears
See some clues in http://members.shaw.ca/hilaryking/Oldbrain1.htm and in http://www.nytimes.com/learning/students/scienceqa/archive/000330.html

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Privacy of e-mail
Thank you for your bit of support regarding the (non)privacy of e-mail. I was beginning to think the whole world was against me, for whatever reason they could dream up next. -- MyWikiBiz 01:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (Ytrottier's note: this refers to a discussion here)

Re: Aluminum alloy
I have some practical experience with the standards, I have a naval architecture degree and aerospace engineering professional experience, though I do computer stuff mostly now. I've designed structures in steel and aluminum, for spacecraft and boats.

ASTM does the structural steel standards, but all the ones I have seen for aluminum alloys are SAE's alloy specs. If you look hard enough on ASTM's website and so on, it resells the SAE specs. ASTM does some aluminum specs... for tubing, and wiring, and a couple of secondary things. I've never seen a structural alloy specification which was done by ASTM; all the 6061, 7075, etc all came from SAE. If you can find a counterexample, feel free, but all the stuff I am aware of and can find reference for is SAE. Georgewilliamherbert 03:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, FYI, A36 steel has a well defined yield point, rather than a 0.2% offset yield stress. There's a slightly stylized stress/strain curve for it on that page, and plenty of standard resources showing the same curve behavior elsewhere.

It's true that most steels have to use 0.2% offset (and most other ductile materials), but A36 is the obvious counterexample. And the most commonly used structural steel, so it's very worth mentioning. Georgewilliamherbert 03:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies on the A36 diagram, it's on Tensile strength. Wrong location to have pointed you to.

The ASTM construction steel standards are standards for composition and minimum strength. They don't specify a precise steel alloy, there's a range, but the properties are required to meet the standard. That's how structural steel is specified for construction. There are often several competing alloys within a specification, but they're almost always specified simply per the standard. The terminology is correct for structural steels. Georgewilliamherbert 04:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)