User talk:Andy Dingley

Ducted fan

Please stop undoing edits on Coanda's plane. His plane was powered by a centrifugal compressor. It's a completely different principle than that of a ducted fan, ff's sake! Check the drawings and pictures of Coanda's engine, then look at some ducted fans (propellers within a duct). A ducted fan can propel without the duct, a centrifugal compresson can not propel without one.

Edited, removed the uncivilites. My point still stays. Please avoid the classification "ducted fan" when it's not one. Please write arguments for why you think it's one, including at least one example of a similar ducted fan, before adding the text in the article. Thank you. Florinbaiduc 13:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Superheater

Hi Andy, Please stop undoing the edits on Superheater and take the time to read the text. Unsaturated steam and wet steam are the same thing. When I first read the article, it was confusing, which is why I took the time to edit it. The revised text should be clearer to everyone. Jonathan 123987 talk 00:34, 26 January 2014

B. Hick and Sons

Hi Andy, do you have any idea whether Benjamin Hick's use of wheel discs (or disc wheels) on his 3 cylinder engine is the first aerodynamic device on a locomotive? I know wheel discs were used on Edwardian cars and aeroplanes. Regards80.229.34.113 (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand? No idea. This is very early, and I can't think of any aerodynamic attempts made so early. Nor is it obvious that wheel discs (rather than pointed rocket noses or bird shapes) would be where to start. AIUI, these were disc wheels though, and were made to avoid the problems of the day with thin spokes. The discs are structural, not aerodynamic.

I'll have a shufty in Ahrons & Nock tonight. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The drawing doesn't show a side profile of the wheel that would perhaps show more of the intention. I did see a boat shape here [1] (Fig 5), it would seem to make sense to apply hydrodynamics to air flow on a locomotive.

Some examples here that do not look particularly aerodynamic: [2]80.229.34.113 (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mather & Dixon GWR loco would be Ajax, which is widely reported but little understood. I think this site: http://spellerweb.net/rhindex/UKRH/GreatWestern/Broadgauge/BGLocos/Ajax.html is probably the best description of it. It used double skin disc wheels as the only practical way to achieve the huge diameter Brunel (a poor locomotive engineer) had requested. Later on it received the first wind-splitting body. It's a few years after this Hick loco though, and they were times of rapid changes in loco design. Note though (which I didn't know before) that they credit the wheel's design to B Hick, which is probably worth noting in that article.

The French seem to like this sort of vertical wedge splitter design. http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/bec/bec.htm There was also the steam-electric Heilmann locomotive, with a similar shape. Also (around the same time) the McKeen railmotor did it too. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Speller's page seems to indicate the wheel was an aerodynamic device given the description and it's profile shown by the section drawing. The wheel design looks to have been more successful than the engines it was fitted to? 100mph c.1847 is fast. Shame Hick didn't last a bit longer.81.149.141.199 (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added for now to Benj Hick's page as "Aerodynamic disc wheel" - adjust as you see fit?Regards81.149.141.199 (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fished out Hick's patent [3], towards the end he states "Wheels for carts, waggons, coaches, timber carriages and for many other uses may be advantageously constructed on this principle". It does not take a great leap of imagination to see Hick's locomotive on road wheels and steering to the front wheels.81.149.141.199 (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest limit on road locomotives at that time was the state of the roads, and the weight of locomotives. They could probably have been built for some decades before they finally were (the portable engine had all the bits in place), but they'd just have bogged down.

I have heard the intriguing story that the first UK road locomotive (by putting a chain drive onto a commercial portable engine) was built by a naval dockyard, as a tractor for heavy cannon, and only had to operate across solid stone-built quays.

Timber carriages are interesting. More in the US than the UK (bigger trees), but some of these used huge diameter wheels to move the sort of tree that would become a ship's mast. These logging wheels (although the WP article is skewed to one maker) had some interesting technical designs to make them rigid enough, such as two row spoking. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another variation here [4]!80.229.34.113 (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further stretch of the imagination on Timber carriages - replace the log with a large cannon, include disc wheels and we have a semi armoured gun platform. Add two more wheels and a steam engine for a self-propelled version or the steam carriage as a tractor.81.149.141.199 (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even at that time it was recognised that artillery couldn't be carried on wheels (at least with that sort of tyre). Cugnot built the first steam road vehicle as an artillery tractor and its own weight did for it, as did the hammerblow on the driving wheel. In the late 19th century, Fowler's steam traction engines were hauling artillery on the same wide wheels that the engines themselves used. There were all manner of Pedrail and Diplock wheels used as well, particularly in Germany (although I've no idea what theirs were called).Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of a wide tyre on a disc wheel or wheel covered with a disc - widen the wheel base from the conventional gun carriage and the crew could (in theory) work between the wheels with better protection?80.229.34.113 (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my bad river edit. Hmains (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delta robots

There is no such category. If you want to make one, that is fine, but nothing is achieved by putting a file in a non-existent category.Rathfelder (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So why not do something useful with your time? Move it to Commons (that category is there because it's the Commons category, which as an image is what it needs and where it belongs. Or create the category on WP - it's a notable topic, with multiple articles after all. Or is this another of those "Only people in the robotics project can edit the robotics articles" things? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Injector

I would welcome your contribution to my recent post on the talk page for this article. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a dead article. Mbeychok used his vast personal knowledge (of just one application) to delete half of it, then edit-warred to maintain it that way. It's not worth the effort to argue with him. Is he still using WP to advertise his books? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a look at the recent stuff. Again, I can see no justfication for the deletions, but it's so bad already that it doesn't make much difference. It's hopelessly confused between injectors, ejectors and Giffard's feedwater injector. Let alone concepts like live steam vs. exhaust steam injectors. As to feedwater pumps though, it's easier to control the flowrate with a pump than an injector. Pumps usually have enough regulation that their flowrate can be adjusted to match connsumption, whilst an injector has only one efficient rate. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is not, no, still using WP to advertise his books; he died.

It is a bit of a mess but I still think it's worth stopping it getting any worse; could you possibly repeat this at the talk page (even the bit where you say I'm wrong)? Pinkbeast (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case there's a bit more hope for it. I'd probably start at Boiler feedwater injector though. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Injectors are strange devices, even though they have no moving parts (there's a series of hollow metal cones, some of which point in the opposite direction to the others). At one end, you feed in steam at a given pressure, mix that with cold water (at virtually zero pressure) and somehow this mixture of low-pressure steam and hot water manages to force its way past the overflow, out the other end, through the clacks and into the boiler - against steam or hot water that is clearly at a higher pressure than either of the two feeds. It shouldn't work, but it does. Black magic hasn't been discounted. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The latent heat of vapourisation of the steam is released by condensation and accelerates the flow; the expanding cone converts this additional velocity into pressure. No magic. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Cumbrian Coast line"

Thanks for your support; unfortunately somebody seems to have nobbled the Department of Transport already, judging by a couple of recent Written Answers: Rolling Stock North West Railways: Overcrowding I haven't checked what the tale is on other lines/Lines. Rjccumbria (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USS Tang (SS-306)

"Tatutaki Maru class". May be right, but in the absence of a reference I don't understand your edit comment. Davidships (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The class of vessel was identified through the periscope and this is sourced from the sub's war diary (which is covered in some of the Tang refs already there). However there's no (AFAIK) Japanese recognition of the sinking, thus no identification to a specific ship. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So please add an in-line reference, then the tag can be removed. Davidships (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland Basin

Just because I'm interested, I get that Cumberland Basin was built to give straighter acess to the tidal Avon at its downriver end. What I'm a bit confused about is why there wasn't just a canal-and-locks dug through when the river was damned at Underfall creating the harbor? Was it to create more docks further down the harbor? From what I understand, it was originally built as its own lock as it was locked off at its eastern end, too, which also confuses me. --Criticalthinker (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what your question is here? Why the basin was built where it was, or why a basin was built rather than a single lock gate?

A basin was needed because the tidal range makes access to the harbour so difficult. There's only time for one basinful of ships to leave in one group, make it down the Avon and then others to come back. So they need to assemble in the basin gradually, then leave as a group. Stragglers might get through the lock (as a lock) individually, but that wasn't quick enough to operate the port.

Putting the basin where it is made its river access more direct. It loses a sharp curve and also some length of the shallow tidal part. Joining the river below the harbour outfall allows a bit more scouring action too. There needs to be somewhere to put the basin too and Hotwells provided more space for this than pushing the river further south into Southville would have done (without even more curve). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading back my questions, I see I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be. Yes, my question was more geared to the second one you stated. I can see why access back to the tidal river was moved to Hotwells after it was damned off at Underfall. I guess what has me a bit confused is why there is a basin, at all, instead of just a cut (canal-and-lock) from the harbor to the river since the basin doesn't speed entry to or from the harbor. Seems to me that unless it's because the habor itself wasn't large or deep enough to simply have the ships wait there to access the river, that it wouldn't make much difference whether there was a specific waiting area or not. And then after that, why the basin had a lock at both ends - one leading to the basin, itself, and then one leading to the harbor, which has since been taken out. It sounds at one time reading the description that the basin, itself was basically a second body of water that could be controlled independent of the harbor, a kind of half-step-down or half-step-up to the river. --Criticalthinker (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not controlled, as that would be a lock. More uncontrolled, like a half-tide basin. The basin level is allowed to vary, so that when the tide is "deep enough", the outer locks can be opened and ships come and go freely in and out of the basin for as long as there's water depth. The basin follows the river height at this time. When the water level gets too low, the lock gates are closed and the basin brought to the main harbour level, allowing traffic in and out of the main docks. Anyone trying to move outside these times can use the locks, as locks. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am I reading incorrectly, then, that there were also locks/a loack at the eastern end of the basin? --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Model Engineering

Andy, what do you think about the latest addition here: Model Engineering current version changes. I'm not too happy about it, because it seems to be too many words and puffery ('unique', 'the finest'). Also I don't think it is in the spirit of the section on 'information sources' (more about mags and shows), and perhaps ought to just go in as a brief mention along with the Internet Craftsmanship Museum, already listed under 'notable model engineers'. I don't want to be too "get off my turf", so What do you think? Stringybark (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL isn't a bad starting point. We're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia here, not a web directory. Articles are there to be self-contained. References are there to verify claims made in the text. ELs are there to link valuable encyclopedic content that we can't license or fit in to our own articles. We are not here to write an article on <foo>, then include the <Fooian museum of foo> in that article, unless that museum has some independent sourcing saying that the Fooian museum is itself an important collection on the topic of <foo>. So the Craftsmanship Museum (i.e. the physical place) doesn't seem to pass there.

However I would still include this as a stand-alone EL. As well as a physical collection, they also have some depth of web content. As "a resource we can't otherwise get to use", then I think this passes EL - although the labelling could be better. "Unique" and "finest" is just puffery and should go. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hounding

OK, really last warning. Next time you do this i will seek, and will very likely get, a one-way interaction ban. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archives