User talk:Wolfkeeper/Archive 1

TDC on Michael Ledeen

TDC reverted you again, but I restored it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't TDC violated the 3rr rule. I'm not really sure how the precedure works, but could you lodge a complaint to get him blocked.annoynmous 21:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

From WP:BLP

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals if the information is derogatory. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy.

Consortiumnews.com is self published by Parry, and not a WP:RS for a BLP. Also, the infomation does not mention Ledden, and is being used to advance a postion, making it WP:SYNT. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I just think you're being tendentious; the information is not derogatory.WolfKeeper 22:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly think it is derogatory, and regardless of what either of us thinks, BLP also says this:

Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable statements about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a statement about a living person, it's a statement of somebodies belief about the facts surrounding a view that the living person holds. That's not the same thing (but we'll see what the admin says), IMO at most this is a content disagreement, and you'll note that that's not an excuse to be 3RR.WolfKeeper 22:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So, its not a statement about Ledeen, its a statement about his beliefs? Interesting, where in the cited material is Ledeen mentioned?

Exactly, so you've got no BLP leg to stand on. Thanks for that.WolfKeeper 22:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds suspiciously like WP:OR to me, but, like you said let someone else decide. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OR isn't a reason for 3RR either. And it's not OR. OR is when you create a new position from one or multiple sources. Merely collating information into the wikipedia is never OR, that's what the wikipedia is; and which is all that was done here.WolfKeeper 22:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Skylon.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Skylon.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 12:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've also listed File:Skylonv.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in the same nomination. Both images are redundant to freely licenced SVG images. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 12:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that they do look similar to the one that you have so kindly drawn my attention to (which I used as a reference in creating them), I can assure you that I created the two images that I uploaded myself. There are several ways in which I can prove they differ.

You can't do that, the images are too close. You can't just take one image and transcribe it into a different format- that's a derived work. If you had worked from two or more sources or you had hand drew a 3D image or something you could get away with it. The images are very obviously the same, and that makes your image a derived work, and hence subject to the original copyright. If you had taken the image and turned it into a rendered image, that would probably have been fine.WolfKeeper 15:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the image in the PDF is also found here: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/hotol/skylon-schem.gif It is a raster file (GIF). My images are vector (SVG). While it is possible to convert raster to vector, the process will produce a single object in the file. If you open the SVGs that I have produced using Inkscape, or a similar programme, you will see that they have been drawn from scratch. There are also differences in the layout of the 4-view image. The raster image has the plan at the top and the side elevation at the bottom, whereas the vector image has these two the other way around. The same is true for the front and rear elevations. There are also no centrelines on my images, as can clearly be seen on the raster file. In short, the images may be similar, but this is only to be expected as they are of the same thing. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 14:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No. The layout is self-evidently the same, and hence you have produced a slavish copy.WolfKeeper 15:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the images. What makes you think they are the same. I suggest that you look for others to support your claim, because whilst they are similar, this is only reasonable given that they are pictures of the same thing. Also, please remember to assume good faith. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 15:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Because I took one look at it, and instantly knew what you had done, which image you had worked from, even before you had admitted it.WolfKeeper 15:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You took one look at it. Take another one. What do you mean by "even before you had admitted it"? Are you trying to misquote me to support your case? I have not admitted anything, mostly because I have nothing to admit. It seems to me that you are trying, by any means neccesary, to keep your image from being deleted, even to the point of defamation. What, exactly are the similarities between the two images? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 16:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not even my image, I just grabbed an image off another website that had a license the wikipedia could live with, and I notified the copyright owner as the license stipulated. I also tried to get some awesome rendered images from elsewhere, but the guy that rendered them didn't own the copyright himself.WolfKeeper 18:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to see a better image on this article.WolfKeeper 18:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Replying to the comment that you embedded in the middle of my earlier post, which I hadn't noticed. - "No, you can't..." - I never stated that I used only one source. I used all the images that I could find to produce the best possible drawing of the article in question. I don't know why I am having this discussion with you, as you will clearly not even consider the possibility that you are not correct. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 16:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright protects a particular representation of the subject matter. You're using almost exactly the same representation as the source you worked from- that makes it a derived work, and subject to the same licensing as the original. I'm sure this is entirely unintentional on your part.WolfKeeper 18:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am considering redrawing this to a different level of detail, which may help to fix the problem.--GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that would help; it's the general presentation that's the trouble. Right now, it's not even completely clear to me whether, if you remove all of the representation items from the original, whether it might still be a derived work of a derived work and hence still under the owners copyright control. I suspect you could argue that one successfully though.

In exchange, could I have a little more tolerance with regards to the IFD discussion of the .gif image, once I have the modified SVG online later this evening or tomorrow? I am glad that we are starting to see more eye-to-eye, and that you can see that I am acting with good faith, per your last post. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you are. I fear the image is dead though; unless we get a license to the original that permits modifications like converting to svg format.WolfKeeper 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am redrafting the image in such a way that it will be blatantly obvious that there is no violation. It will be licenced in the same way that the current SVGs are. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've redrawn and reuploaded the image, I can see no further cause for concern. If you're happy, perhaps we can move on. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If I encounter a "very litigious lawyer", I will sue him for frivolous litigation. Anyway, detailed analysis would prove that I didn't copy him. The 3-view (or 4-view, 5-view, etc) drawing style is very common. Google returns about 108 million results for it, so he can hardly claim some form of copyright on the style. BTW, I would have liked to have done an orthographic projection, but I can't draw with perspective, so it would look crap. Thanks for your comment, seeing as there is now no major cause for concern, I will go ahead and change the image on the skylon article. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 06:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad reversion control on Chard

Sorry Wolfkeeper, I have no idea how I got into the position of messing your Talk page up with my vandalism reversion. I apologise. JohnHarris 03:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

no worries- I got caught out with a race-condition between me and a bot, and to make matters worse, I'd picked a suboptimal revert point, so I ended up re-adding some vandalism, but I soon spotted it, and reverted properly, but you must have spotted the intermediate state and assumed I was vandalising; what are the chances of all that? ;-) WolfKeeper 03:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

RAE Bedford

Instead of saying: "reasonably large", could you give dimensions? It is kind of like saying that the Titanic was a reasonably large ship. Doesn't mean much to someone who has never left Iowa and has never seen a ship. WikiDon 04:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember the exact sizes right now. My father worked on them, I'll add them later. I think the subsonic was 13x9 at the throat (much bigger elsewhere), I forget the supersonic size, but it was much smaller.WolfKeeper 05:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Block someone from Editing

hello, Wolfkeeper

i am still somewhat new to Wikipedia, but believe so firmly in it's mission.

a user continues to vandalize websites, even after notices. i do not know how (or if i am allowed) to block that user. noticed you had a stern warning to this user and they have continued to pervert entries.

the user is 24.148.112.76, and it/he/she vandalized the miniature golf page.

can you block or help put me in touch with someone that can?

Please advise, Sheml+gn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheml+gn (talk • contribs) 17:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks, Much!

--Sheml+gn 19:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

space weather

The space radiation at the surface of Mars is non negligible; there's only 20 grams/centimeter^2 of atmosphere; you really want 10x that.WolfKeeper 22:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

'Space radiation' is very much different from space weather. The cosmic ray flux on Mars is higher than on Earth, fair enough, but 20 g/cm^2 cuts down a flare to the point of sensitive electronics not noticing. Michaelbusch 00:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but humans notice. The radiation on Mars surface is about 5 Rems/year. Anything above about 200 mRems/year is considered high. And solar flares are what pushes this up; that's space weather- it actually matters when you are on Mars due to the lack of magnetic field and lack of atmosphere. You would probably not want to be out and about during a flare.WolfKeeper 00:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know why my edits were considered vandalism? I'm not promoting a business, and my site was perfectly relevant to the articles I added it to. What's more, others have done the exact same thing, which is where I got the idea. Why is a site on hydrogen peroxide allowed, but mine is not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie herman (talk • contribs) 04:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Life Expectancy Edit; McDermott Clan

I have managed to find exact and specific citations for the McDermott Gift Segment. As your discussion comment says,please remove the "tag". If you are not happy with it, then please say so in the discussion section and I will add more citations and give more "In-Depth" information on the subject. Just so you know, this is the first time Iv'e ever really contributed to wikipedia and I'm new to the citation thing.

Yours Truly

Seánlaoch Alexxsándrío McGealách —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.88.22 (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A life expectancy of 110 means that 50% of the family reaches 110 y/o. That is not remotely plausible. There is no pure water in human bodies, human bodies rely on water not being pure; your contributions are simply ridiculous.WolfKeeper 05:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.61.136 (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Complex number

I think we need to keep the "a + bi" bit in (or near) the first sentence of the article on complex numbers to keep from confusing people. It may not be intuitive to some people what an "ordered pair of reals" means. Maybe something like "a pair of real values (a,b) to represent a + bi". Thoughts?--- Wafulz (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Could do, particularly if we moved the rest of the notation stuff out of the introduction into the body- it sits uneasily where it is I think; specifically an example in the introduction is a bit odd to be honest.WolfKeeper (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nozzle design reference

Wow, that's a great reference you recently cited for the Space Shuttle main engine article! It looks like the version you cite is a copy of this article at the Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne consulting website. I think it might be better to reference the original -- do you agree? BTW, that site has lots of other good reference material too! (sdsds - talk) 01:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. It might also be well worth referencing from the aerospike article as well.WolfKeeper (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ion thruster edits

So, when I first did my research project on ion thrusters i looked at this page about a year ago and it pretty much gave the impression that ion thrusters were considered electrostatic ion thrusters. After I did all my research and stuff I learned about all the other types and how broad ion thrusters could be. My editing project, for a completely different class, was to find an article that needed editing in a field you liked. Since this page was kinda confusing and not as good as it could have been i chose it. I was torn as to how to edit it since I completely agree with you as to ion thrusters being comprised of many types and not just gridded ones, but the page still seems to be focused on gridded electrostatic ones with the current example of a gridded one and the disclaimer at the top saying that the whole article is focused on gridded thrusters. A major part of editing is editing someone's work while keeping their general intent, so I was going to keep it focusing on gridded thrusters for that purpose. However, now that I know you think it should be a general article on ion thrusters too, I'll stick to that and word the article accordingly.

Sorry thats kinda long and hopefully it made sense, but I thought I'd explain myself.

One more thing, I still think there should be a general design description, and since gridded electrostatic ion thrusters were the first, i feel that it's alright to use it as an example. It's also possible that there can be no description of the design. Let me know what you think.

Dmpdpete (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Pandora's Box and Gary, Indiana

Nothing in either article, other than the link, was present to indicate any sort of connection. Nothing in the Pandora's Box article indicated such; nothing in the Gary article indicated such. I had no other basis to go on. If you're going to place a link of that sort, at least make certain that the connection between the two subjects are apparent. Had that been apparent, I would never have removed the link, nor sent the warning. The veiled insults are not necessary. --Mhking (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wolfowitz on Pipes article

The way his name is inserted into the narrative is gratuitous, as it adds nothing to the narrative of the article. Simply that that one person was working with him on the team is not notable. Perhaps, if later the article said "Among others on the team were..." and there was a sampling of two or three names, that might be acceptable,

I agree, go ahead and add them.WolfKeeper (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

but I don't think the way it stands now, as a name randomly dropped into the text about Pipes being on Team B, is appropriate.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's notable, and verifiable, so you don't really have a leg to stand on.WolfKeeper (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't matter now, but it turns out ol'Wolfowitz wasn't even a member of Team B! Just on its staff. Oh, well no use beating dead horses.--Dudeman5685 17:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

yeah right

i edited some unproven data deal with it

If you disagree with referenced material (and it was referenced in the dosage section), then you need to discuss it on the talk page.WolfKeeper (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Delta-v (physics)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Delta-v (physics), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Delta-v (physics). Regua (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Centrifugal effects

Wolfkeeper. I'm happy to try telling astronauts that centrifugal effects do not alter weight. Weight is _defined_ by W=mg (and g=GM/r^2) which makes it unchanged by centrifugal effects - this is why it's correct to refer to a "perceived weight". Another example would be standing on bathroom scales in a falling elevator (lower reading due to a reduced reactiopn force with the scales, but the same _weight_ provided it's measured at the same altitude as when the elevator is stationary so g is unchanged). It's a common error to think that weight is changed by non-interial frames of reference, but the definition of weight is clear and adding "perceived" makes the article correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.30.186.250 (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Delta-v (physics)

Delta-v (physics), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Delta-v (physics) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta-v (physics) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Delta-v (physics) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute on FGC

Hi. I am having a dispute with a user on FGC. I noticed your previous contribution and hoped you might provide some third-party commentary on a dispute at Blackworm’s objections. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. Thank You. Phyesalis (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Wolves and Humans Foundation

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Wolves and Humans Foundation, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wolves and Humans Foundation. Thank you. --B. Wolterding 16:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Images on Sonic Boom

I removed three images from Sonic Boom that are completely nonsensical and serve only to confuse the reader. You reverted the change. I removed them again, noting in the edit summary that anyone who disagreed could discuss it on the talk page. You reverted this change without discussion. Do you have any reason for reverting my changes, or is it just a knee-jerk reaction to something you don't understand? DES 19:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't go around removing stuff from the wikipedia that you don't understand, that's not how this place works, otherwise it would be empty. There's always somebody that doesn't understand something. Those diagrams make perfect sense in fact, and are not nonsensical, and if you don't understand them, you should examine them more carefully.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverted.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate all the good work you have done, but I agree with DES that the area-rule figure is incomprehensible as drawn. I am not a professional aerodynamicist, but I do have a PhD in physics and a garden-variety understanding of the the elements of supersonic flow. Is this a cross section of a vehicle? What is the direction of the flow? Which are the compression and expansion shocks? What is the relation of the two disjoint white regions to each other?

In the context of an encyclopedia, I think it should be understandable without having to go to an outside sources. It may be sensible and salvageable, but it surely needs more explanation, or references to a source in Wikipedia where sufficient explanation can be found. Wwheaton (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Solar satellites

You're wrong about solar panels on the surface being more economic. it depends on the launch costs. Solar panels in space produce 3x more power, because they don't rotate, but only 1/3 is lost in transmission to the Earth. Therefore if the launch costs are less than the cost of the panels, then it's cheaper to do it in space. It turns out that on a per kwh/kg basis, solar panels and launch costs are pretty comparable to buy; and the space based version isn't subject to weather and seasons.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There are other factors at play - maintenance for example. Solar satellites will always be uneconomical compared to earth based solar. On the other hand there will be more people living in space than on the planet before the end of this millennium, and using solar satellites for power, but not to beam it around, but to use it locally. Only the military wants space based solar power, but they want it to fry people, not to provide power. 199.125.109.41 (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's wrong, your figures are off. Solar panels weigh about 3-10 kg per kW. and cost around $10,000/kilowatt. Launch costs are about $20,000 per kg right now, but that's at one launch a month or so quantities. If you work out the multiple launches per day cost, the price is more like $700/kg or so (based on the standard economies of scale metrics), and the panel costs comes down as well if you're buying in bulk (but they're already manufactured in bigger bulk that rockets, so they don't come down as much). So the launch costs are actually cheaper than the costs of the panels- but you get more than twice as much power when you put a panel in space and beam it down for much less than twice the total costs.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't maintain them, if they fail, you ignore them. Solar panels don't need maintainance.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just how much did you think that panels cost, anyway? $700/kg is ridiculous to pay for mounting a solar panel when you can just nail it to the roof of your house. Todays panels don't cost $10k/kw, they are closer to $3, and by next year will be down closer to $1.

No. Average installed costs is $7-9 per watt. There's a big difference between peak and average. The average on orbit is 3 or more times higher; and the launch costs are lower than the cost of the panels to buy. It's quite complicated, but you're wrong. It also depends on where you are in the world. If you're on the equator, yeah, sure maybe. If you're in the UK, no.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The sun still shines in the UK. There is a table of installed solar in the photovoltaics article, and it lists the UK as having kWh/kWp values ranging from 900-1300, meaning that for every Watt installed you get about a kWhr/year out, in the UK, about half what you get in Mexico, but still plenty for everyones needs. The trend also is to use less energy, not more, as efficiencies improve. I have heard, though I don't believe it, that we can save up to 95% of our energy consumption with no loss of quality of life by simply changing how we use energy, and focus more on conservation and efficiency. It certainly is a lot less than what is now used in the UK, whatever the number is, although I can believe 80% more easily than 95%. 199.125.109.41 (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, don't care, show me a lifestyle that uses less energy, and I'll show you a way to make that cost even less, using SPS. All I know is, I've got a spreadsheet with realistic figures in with projected costs of energy in roughly the £0.03-£0.06/kwH range or below, which is less than the wholesale costs of the electricity I'm getting from my wall socket, using solar power satellites, and including rocket launch costs, installations costs, power beaming costs, solar panel costs etc. etc. And other people have found the same. And in the last few days, I've been investigating a paper on a plausible launch system with projected costs in $3/kg range to launch it with; and I have every reason to think that can work as well, but the rocket system is much more traditional. Show me a solar panel that can cost $3 per KILOGRAM and we'll talk.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Think about lifetime cost. While panels don't require much maintenance, they do wear out over time. Panels on your roof can be recycled in 30 years, panels in space become space junk and are not going to be recoverable. Even if you could hoist it into space for free, there is no reason to do so, because you can get all the power you need by just using the panels here on earth. All of this is totally hypothetical of course, because no one is actually building any of these contraptions, and doing so would be a total waste of money. 199.125.109.41 (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, it doesn't matter, that's my point. By the time they wear out they've repaid their costs very many times over; you're acting like maintenance is a cost centre, but it's actually a way of making more money, or otherwise you dispose of it into a graveyard orbit or collide it with the moon or whatever, it's not very expensive.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think your decimal places are in the wrong places. Think about it. If you could launch for $3/kg you could go to the moon for cheaper than it takes to get to the continent. Anyone who weighed 50 kilos for $150 could buy a ticket to get to outer space. I don't think so. $300 for 100 kilos. Why is the going price $10 million if you can get someone into space for 30,000 times less than that? Are you sure you didn't mean $3/gram? 199.125.109.73 (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the estimate I saw was $3/kg. I'm not sure it would quite reach that price point, but it's possible; I'm far more confident in the $300/kg that the first iteration of the system claims for the first year of operation. If the first iteration of the system was still working after the first year, it might well get down to $50-$100/kg though- most of the price in the $300/kg was capital costs that were being paid off (and the payoff period was set at one year). The second scaled up version would be perhaps around $3/kg without any new tech, and yes, it is feasible for suborbital, space tourism and lunar trajectories. The caveats are that it's a scary-looking system; it needs a large launch campaign to work (which SPS would provide), and the technology readiness level is only about 3, but it requires no breakthroughs to be built.[1]- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

p.s. your estimate assumed that you would be launching a lone person, without a space suit; in practice you need to reckon on maybe 1+ tonne per person.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot to pack a lunch, still cheaper by a thousand than what we are currently paying. The space shuttle was supposed to get launch costs down to about $1,000 per lb and ended up being ten times that. While I expect launch costs to decrease there are fundamental physics involved that you run hard up against. Remember that I think that there will be more people living off the planet in space stations, than on the planet by the end of the millennium. That's what is going to be launched into space, not power plants. 199.125.109.73 (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Rocket equation the Launch loop isn't limited by it, because it's not a rocket (unless you count the Earth as exhaust!).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that technology won't change, I'm saying that it's more practical to put solar panels on rooftops than it is to put power plants in outer space.

It's not though, they're too expensive. They're showing promise, but right now they never repay the investment. The SPS would repay the investment and be cheaper.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I can also tell you the future never looks like what we think it might look like. One thing you can count on, though, is that more people will be living off the planet than on the planet. 199.125.109.73 (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't count on it. You need to make it happen.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There is only one thing that would stop it. According to Geoff Marcy, "It's possible that a technological state that includes advanced weapons shortens the typical lifetime of a civilization, even to no more than a few thousand or million years." The only thing that would stop it would be if we had reached that end prior to the end of the millennium. What I believe, is that advanced weapons makes war obsolete, and that we will learn this truth and eliminate warfare. We are certainly moving in that direction, pushed forward by the gaffe in the US of the last 6 years. One of the tenants of Star Trek was that we either learn to live with each other or we cease to live. Colonizing space, on the other hand, along with reversing global warming, are two of the most important projects of the 21st century, although the former will happen without any intervention, and the latter clearly requires intervention to "make it happen". 199.125.109.77 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, very little that happens to humans is accidental. If you dig deeply enough into almost anything you usually find somebody or lots of people making it happen. Sure some things like global warming or whatever happen as side effects but I don't see that colonising space can happen as a side-effect; and Star Trek is ultimately just fiction, no matter how inspiring it may be, it's not enough.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

One word. Plastics. Oops, I mean real estate. As one teenager put it, there is either intelligent life in the universe or there is one whole lot of unused real estate out there. Getting there, make no mistake, is inevitable. Why did people spread to six continents plus many islands? Not by accident, and not because someone charismatically lead them either. The same is true of colonization of outer space. Oh sure when the history books are written they will falsely credit this person or that for spearheading the migration, but I can emphatically guarantee that it will happen no matter what; barring only one thing, which was mentioned previously. I do not see Star Trek as inspiration, but as entertainment. The inspiration comes just from looking up at night. Global warming happened by accident, and won't be fixed without a major concerted effort. Colonization will continue to occur (by accident), although we will clearly need new treaties, such as agreeing not to beam power to the planet. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Just keep polishing your star fleet uniform badge, and everything will be OK, I'm sure. You just need to sit there and watch reruns.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No thanks. I'm not a star wars fan. I don't expect to get to the moon or to outer space, but I know that many billions will in this millennium. 199.125.109.41 (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Launch Loops and Space Elevators aren't tall structures

Hi, Wolfkeeper. As cool and exciting as ideas of space elevators and launch loops are, they don't belong on a list of tall structures. Please read my comments on Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_the_world, and please respond to them there. I'd love to hear your response to the issues I raised, and to see what other people think about these as well. Cheers!

Fredwerner (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:SR71J58.png

Do you have a source for Image:SR71J58.png that is not en.wikipedia? -- carol 12:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

it's from the flight manual which is declassified and public domain. There's an online copy at: http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/ but i forget which page number.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

here

Explaining "inaccurate" cite on Net Neutrality page

Hmm, do you mean I need to find another third-party source that points out inaccuracy in the cited source? What I refer to is the Common Cause page saying the organization "hid[es] their relationship with their corporate backers." I don't know of another citation that explicitly rebuts this, but if one visits the homepage for the organization, and right in the right hand sidebar is a list of the member organizations -- so the allegation seems unfounded. Likewise, the Washington Post article which Common Cause cited does not imply that it purported to be a "genuine grassroots concern" or anything like that.

There are a million and one advocacy groups in Washington DC, and they are not all astroturf organizations. I haven't seen any other evidence that the "astroturf" charge has been claimed, so I don't think it belongs in the entry. Additionally, I changed it because rather than just accusing it of being astroturf, it seemed more informative to list some of the big players, to give an idea of its supporters. This change also preserved AT&T as the main backer. Your thoughts? --BunnyColvin (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Splitting comments

Please don't split other users' comments like this.[2] That makes it very hard to respond, and breaks up the train of thought of the original editor. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Deltavs.jpg

Hi Wolfkeeper. This diagram is neat. How did you make it? Would it be possible to upload an SVG or PNG version of it? --Doradus (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There is one, but it's rubbish. It needs titivating before making it go live. The current one is better quality.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed the svg. Looks good! --Doradus (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

tx. it's still a bit rough, I'm intending to do some more work on it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed it's missing a red arrow from LEO to Earth. --Doradus (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, many tx. Fixed.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wolfkeeper

Hey. I notice you've edited heavily on WP:LEAD and its talk. It's hard for me to get a grip on, to be honest. It seems to be disruptive (which is NOT acceptable on Wikipedia), but you also seem to be genuinely concerned about your articles, so I'll assume good faith that you don't want problems. Wolfkeeper, PLEASE:

• Do not edit any other policies or guidelines. Note that changing a policy or guideline to suit your argument is, basically, impossible on Wikipedia. You can talk about them, of course, but changing them out of nowhere can be a serious hassle. If you edit LEAD again, you may well be blocked.

I find this incredibly offensive. What right do you have to threaten me with this? So far as I can tell you aren't even an admin. You're the one trying WP:OWN the article. And the article is, quite frankly, in poor shape.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're upset and want some guidance and help, please post to me. You hate the guidelines?! Hey, that can be talked about, as well. (Do note: I need to sleep too, but I will respond, eventually.) Cheers, Marskell (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say "Hi" too, but Marskell beat me to it. I enjoyed our (partly humorous) exchange on the LEAD talk page. I've also noticed that you have respected my idea to revert to a stable version of the guideline, until there is consensus for change. This is a great, and should address the issues Marskell is worrying about. I couldn't help noticing you are interested in physics related articles. These desperately need a champion: see WP:WikiProject Physics for a starting point (if you don't already know it). I'm a mathematician myself, and also experienced some difficulty adjusting and relating to the way Wikipedia works. It has it's pluses and minuses, but to get anywhere, you have to work with it not against it. I'd be happy to discuss this further with you on either of our talk pages. Geometry guy 22:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, I wasn't meaning to threaten you at all. The comment was tacitly a 3RR warning but reading it again it seems sort of patronizing. I apologize for that. It's just that you were peppering multiple threads with aggressive comments; it can appear disruptive. Marskell (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I tested equally high in vocab as well as scoring in the top 1% in college, graduate and LSAT placement exams, so I am as reasonably sure about my interpretations of terms as you are, if not more so. Let's not turn this into a 'Who's Got the Bigger Dick' competition, as it is is neither productive nor likely to resolve in your favor. Let's keep it objective, shall we? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no evidence of it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that would represent a failure on your part as observer, wouldn't it? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, anything is possible.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Such is life, I have found. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, refactoring posts - to whit, moving them so as to present a chronological progression of their posting - is completely correct, but I am frankly too busy to get into a pissing contest over it. In the future, please present your posts at the bottom of the page, if you would. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:LaunchLoopRotor.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:LaunchLoopRotor.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, really.

Perhaps it is just me, but it would seem to me that someone as highly educated as yourself would realize when they haven't achieved a consensus in discussion to make changes that are considered disagreeable. As you have been reverted repeatedly by several others, that should be a clear indicator that you do not have a consensus, and adding the material anyway makes you appear as an - to use your term - edit warrior. You will find that my revert of your material is explained in the edit summary. i won't bother reiterating it, as my time is better spent on matters not involving teaching the nearsighted to see clearly, but suffice it to say that when you do not have a clear consensus for your edits in the discussion, it doesn't magically transmogrify into a mandate to add it repeatedly. My revert is to send you back to discussion and seek consensus, and not to seek to wear down your detractors. I certainly hope that clarifies matters for you.
As well, while my skin is not as thin as others, it is not so thick that uncivil comments do not annoy me. If you want to be treated with respect, then give it. You get three chances with me to prove you aren't some uncivil assclown, and you have blown two of them. Please refine your behavior. I am sure that someone as well-educated as you claim to be can find a way, recall or otherwise hunker down to think up a way to post without engendering negative responses to your posts. I will await the results of your efforts. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that, with all due respect, putting yourself in the position of defining consensus as well as removing edits that you claim are non consensus is a massive conflict of interest. I think that your above comment would read a lot better if this was not the case.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's try this a different way: take me out of the equation completely. You are discussing an issue that you have with the way that an article reads, and you are meeting considerable resistance to the idea. Does it seem at all appropriate - or even conducive to positive interactions with your fellow editors - to repeatedly introduce those edits in contention? Clearly, the answer is a resounding no. If you cannot begin to see this, perhaps you might need to take several steps back. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish to point out that the particular edit that lead to this particular discussion had never been made before, and yet you still reverted it on 'consensus' grounds, even though there was no prior evidence that it was in any way contentious, nor did you raise it on the talk page, nor was or is there any evidence that it had ever been raised before.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the other policies and guidelines are subject to quite the degree of reversion that this one is. That concerns me. That concerns me a lot. And if you don't see why that is, then you need to take a lot of steps back.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I quite understand the concern and in fact share it, though I am not in favor of the changes you advocate. You need to consider the very likely possibility that your definitions are in fact the wrong ones. It becomes ever more so likely when two or more people suggest this to you. You seem to take issue with all of those definitions which are currently in use within the Wikipedia. It is, of course, your right to contend that we are all wrong and you are right, but - and this is going to be the bitterest pill about Wikipedia for you to swallow, I'm sure - but Wikipedia is not about truth. It is about what is cited and agreed to by consensus. It doesn't have to match any other encyclopedia on the planet. You and I both know that the dictionaries and encyclopedias offer the same information in differing methods and degrees. Consider that WP has that right as well.

My suggestion that if you find yourself unable to accept the will of the majority (i.e., consensus), then you are going to be repeatedly disappointed with Wikipedia. I don't to chase you away; quite the opposite. You are possessed of some intellect and reason, which is a splendid start. If you rid yourself of that pesky inference that its 'your way or the highway', you will find our interactions far less heated. I hate to trounce my fellow editors; it resolves little and only tends to foster ill will.

As for reversion and consensus goes, if an edit goes back and forth, with your edits assuming definitions not in use and - more importantly - agreements not in place, it creates what we in the regular world call a contentious editing environment. If I choose to take action to prevent an edit war from forming (with a guideline article being one of the casualties), I will take the action I did every single time, and thrice on Sunday. That I chose to do so is a non-issue, as there is nothing at all you can say to convince me that my action in preventing it was not warranted. Let's sidestep that from now on, and focus on the actual edits. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Jet engine

Were you the one looking for a turbofan version of Image:Jet engine.svg? Is figure 15-1 of this FAA manual what you are looking for? I don't quite understand the difference, but I can redraw figure 15-1 pretty easily and it seems a shame to cut the featured image out of the jet engine article. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that's a turbojet. We really need a turbofan, a turbofan is a jet engine where the compressor at the front is bigger than the rest of the engine, and much of the air bypasses around the combustors and turbine sections. Turbofans are much more efficient and all current commercial airliners and almost all military aircraft use them. We really want to discuss the common case I think, since we are describing the features, and the bypass duct is fairly important feature that isn't present on a turbojet.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 10:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ideally we really want a jet engine with an inlet on it, as well as an afterburner.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 10:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Me 262

Thought you might be able to help with this question. THanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Railgun article

I think you saw the problems in the description of a railgun even before I added the note to the discussion page. It seems the brief distinction between a railgun and a coilgun is a useful one, because it's a common point of confusion. We shouldn't remove it entirely. Your observation that a coilgun is contactless is a good one, whereas a railgun requires contact through a conductor between the rails.

Two contacts, one on each side of the moving armature.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I suggest the railgun description should be generic and avoid specific details that are unique to an implementation. A railgun can pass current though the projectile or through a sliding contact behind the projectile. But in the general case, it's the interaction between a magnetic field and a current that produces the force which accelerates the projectile.

I don't disagree that a current accelerates the projectile, but that's not sufficient to define what a railgun is for somebody reading the lead. Even the question 'why is it a railgun' isn't answered.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

But... railguns don't use two sliding contacts that permit [current] to pass through a projectile. A sliding contact is used as a conductor in place of the projectile to avoid passing high current through the projectile. This method reduces heat in the projectile. Because the projectile and the conductor are two separate masses, this method uses a sabot to guide the projectile between the rails and to isolate it from the conductor. Mtd2006 (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A sliding contact is a mechanism to permit electrical current to pass between two metal conductors that may have relative motion. You seem to be confusing this with the conductor that carries the current after it has traversed the first contact point.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The conductor on a railgun does not use two contacts.

that's trivially incorrect from the definition of contact- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The projectile is not necessarily the conductor.

I don't consider this to be a helpful.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Electrical devices use contacts where there are repetitive, mechanical make-and-break connections in a circuit, or when there's continuing relative motion between parts of a device that conduct current. The contacts in these devices are used to prevent or reduce long-term damage to the device, and to make repair of worn or damaged parts easier. The conductor between the rails of a railgun is a one-time component. It functions as a path for current for a fraction of a second and is not reused. One side of the conductor directly touches one rail and the other side touches the other rail; no contacts are used or needed.

Whenever you touch two pieces of metal together to conduct an electrical current, then you have an electrical contact. That's all, there doesn't have to be anything different about the metals, it's only necessary that they enable conduction. It's as simple as that. In this case it's 2 sliding contacts. End of discussion.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Technology Review article cited at [3] makes the distinction between the conductor and the separate projectile: The railgun gets its name from two highly conductive rails, which form a complete electric circuit once the metal projectile and a sliding armature are put in place. Note that the projectile does not need to be a conductor of electric current when a separate conductor or armature is used. The term armature comes from analogy with electric motors where the armature is the part that conducts current in the presence of a magnetic field. This current in the conductor, or armature, interacts with the magnetic field to produce a force that results in motion. In a railgun the use of a separate conductor or armature is optional, as the current can pass directly through a conductive projectile. However, when an separate conductor or armature is used, its purpose is to reduce current through the projectile. This arrangement helps the projectile to survive the trip between the rails with less damage caused by heating and arcing. A sabot is another optional part that further protects the projectile from damage.

If you want to make edits that emphasize that the projectile portion is sometimes made up of two or more distinct parts, such as a sabot and a bullet or whatever then go right ahead.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely happy with my most recent edit because it's overly specific; it implies the conductor and the projectile must be separate. The Technology Review article makes the same mistake when it states that there is a "complete electric circuit once the metal projectile and a sliding armature are put in place." (my emphasis) This may be true, but often the circuit is not complete until after the railgun is loaded and subsequently fired when a switch is closed to complete the current path. Mtd2006 (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that typically the armature is fired in between the rails by a separate mechanism, otherwise spot welding can occur, which is disastrous; and so the armature itself may close the circuit (or not).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The armature is fired between the rails by the same mechanism as the projectile. That is, when an armature is used, the force produced by the current passing through the armature accelerates both the armature and the projectile down the length of the rails. In the railgun literature that I've seen, spot welding manifests itself as melt deposit, and plasma and arc erosion of the rails. These are all technological challenges that do occur and must be overcome in a practical railgun design. Mtd2006 (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there's often/usually a gas gun that gives the armature its initial motion; but exact mechanisms vary.23:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Escape Velocity

I changed it because I'm very certain that an unknowing reader would assume that that link meant that rockets could achieve escape velocity.

Yes, that's what it means, and that's what they routinely do.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also assuming that the reader knows that rockets leave earth, they may assume that it is necessary for the rockets to achieve escape velocity to leave the earth, which is a common misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott.262144 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That's two different assumptions, and neither is encouraged by the text.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Numbers on Gravity drag vector diagram

Hi Woolfkeeper. I was wondering if you'd be willing to change the numbers on Image:GravityDrag.png to match the article text? That would make the hypotenuse 2.6g and the red line 2.4g. --Doradus (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy Notice

Hello, Wolfkeeper. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Wolfkeeper and WP:LEAD.

I'm not the one who filed this ANI, but it appears you weren't notified about it so I'm leaving you this notification so you can join in the discussion, if desired. Collectonian (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad Image

I just noted your post on this topic. Thank you so very much for speaking up, I believe we share the exact same view. I have tried hard to make this point on that talk page and ultimately I was very rudely told that Wikipedia has already reached a consensus, and my proposal is irrelevant. I was also advised to get my proposal vetted at village pump. So, I did raise it at: Village Pump (Proposals). Although initially I got swept away with "Oppose" posts, I kept arguing logically and in last few days I have been recieveing more "support"s than "oppose"s. Please take a look. I believe you are proposing the same thing. Arman ^(Talk) 01:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with these images being in this particular article ultimately on purely logical grounds, based on wikipedia policy, and my experience on a couple of the more difficult articles. So I made the argument, but I'm not sure it will work. The wikipedia doesn't work on logical grounds very much (even though the policies say it should), it works on a bunch of people with agendas, and some of those agendas will inevitably include keeping these images in the article. It can depend on who these people are and what their influence is, and so it may not be possible.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Before you begin posting comments I seriously suggest that you read the important notice in the red box at the top of the page. However if you forgot to look, here it is again. A summary of the current consensus and answers to you question regarding pictures of Muhammad can be found at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. If you want to avoid seeing the images on that page, you might want to read this: How to set your browser to not see images. Janus8463 (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read anything I have written. I've already read the FAQ, and it didn't seem to answer this particular question. If I can establish that the point is already answered somewhere, then I will extend the FAQ to cover this point better. It's unclear that this has been done correctly on policy grounds, if it has, then extending the FAQ will cover it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 05:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper can you please read the Talk:Muhammad/FAQ more throughly. Specifically, the depictions are, thus, not meant to have any accuracy to them, and are presented here for what they are: yet another form in which Muhammad was depicted by Muslim artists. Also, there is no need to accuse users of having a hidden "agenda", I'm sorry but there is no massive conspiracy in Wikipedia. Janus8463 (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There's certainly no massive conspiracy as you put it; the wikipedia is very difficult to control, but there's certainly people with overlapping/conflicting agendas here (not necessarily secret ones) as with any human situation.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Schaeffler Group

Really? I was under the impression they had to make contact and officially license the text. Basically they copied all the text from their nn website and that's legit? Suppose I learn something every day. I tossed up speedying it as an ad, would that have been better. Travellingcari (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think if they were representatives of Shaeffler, then they've legally licensed it to us when they hit the save key (there is that disclaimer, and they were self-evidently advertising anyway, so they deliberately put it here.) But we probably can't prove it was them, although an IP check might give fairly convincing evidence. But I doubt they went through the motions to formally acknowledge that this has happened, so your CSD seems reasonable. ;-)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Got it, wasn't entirely sure how the licensing worked. Looks as if someone removed it in the interim, so the page is dealt with. I hate nn companies spamming, especially when it's been here a year with tag soup. Have a good day! Travellingcari (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lunar Receiving Laboratory Artifacts

Hi..I noticed you undid my website entry which covers LUNAR RECEIVING LABORATORY items and history....for my own education is that because you determined the webpage ( http://www.spaceaholic.com/lrl.htm ) not relevant to the topic?

Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceaholic (talk • contribs) 22:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you were making self-interested edits to the wikipedia over a variety of articles. The guidelines say you are better off adding them to the talk pages and letting others do that; otherwise it tends to look like spam linking. The notability of these pages are not ridiculously high (google rank of 3), but you can probably get away with it I suppose, just don't go nuts.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WHY?

youre an idiot. your obviously some jealous german/american that cant face the fact that it isnt a german invention. proof on source #4 shows Von Ohain had been given the patent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirjustinflames (talk • contribs) 12:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I counted 5 falsehoods above; but that aside. The facts we know are: a) Whittle had the patent b) Ohain got something working first c) Whittle believed Ohain when he said he hadn't read the patent. Everything else is pretty much conjecture. Beyond that, I don't really care, and I'm not going to let the article get hijacked by a bunch of very marginal and dodgy 'references'.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why Sirjustinflames (talk · contribs) is edit warring with you, including a useless, possibly even spiteful, revert at Launch loop, but I'm keeping an eye on him. If you know what may be setting him off, please let me know. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He just seems to be a POV warrior that believes that Whittle was the Only Inventor (tm) of the jet engine, and that a guy called Ohain 'stole' his idea by reading the patent; there's no hard evidence that he even read the patent, and Whittle believed Ohain when he told him he hadn't. Even if he had, it's not against the law- Ohain was in a different country. And Ohain did build the first working prototype. This guy Sirjustinflames has rewritten the article with relatively poor English on several occasions and added in low quality links to support his contention. He's really pissed off with me because I keep reverting him. He's had multiple accounts/IPs (I think this is the third over several months). If he adds a decent link then he will have achieved NPOV, and I'll let his edits hold, but none of them are so far.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Reblock

No, I will not. The user was discussing in good faith, and the block had lost its preventive value. At that point, the only reason to keep the block was holding technicalities of the WP:3RR above all common sense. The edit dispute is over, and the user is highly unlikely to continue. Mangojuice^talk 21:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There's absolutely no way that any of this was in good faith, before during or after. You only have to read the stuff they removed from the article, the information I put on their talk page that they totally ignored and all he stuff they've written since.

You've just been conned.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Combustion instabilities/screeching

Hi -- I guess I am not clear on the relative importance of these issues, or the way they couple to one another in practice. I have no doubt that thinning of the boundary layer is often the immediate cause of disaster, yet it seems inevitable that non-linear gas dynamic effects and acoustic resonances can contribute to that. Let me see review what Sutton has to say about it. I also have a copy of Murray & Cox's book (1989) on the Apollo program, and it devotes a whole chapter (most of Ch 10, and more in Ch 13) to the awful time they had getting the F-1 to behave. I think that is where I picked up the idea that these things like to conspire to cause nasty problems. Eg, p.148:

"If, for example, the holes in the [injector] plate were drilled so that one side of the flame front had a slightly higher oxygen content that the other side, the high-oxygen area would get hotter and produce higher pressures on that side. In a smaller combustion chamber, this imbalance might not create difficulties. But in the F-1, there was plenty of room for a "racetrack" effect to get started, in which a higher pressure on one side of the chamber would bounce, starting a wave front that would begin careening around the perimeter of the barrel. Within milliseconds, the heat fluxes would be bounding back and forth across the combustion chamber, reinforcing each other, going out of control, and destroying the engine."

"'The slightest thing could trigger it,' said one of the F-1's engineers of combustion instability. This was a vexing problem, because the inside of an F-1 combustion chamber during launch was prone to develop a variety of 'slightest things'...."

This is the sort of thing I had in mind when I wrote that bit yesterday in the mechanical section. The essence of it is positive feedback at some broadly resonant frequency into a complex non-linear system. The H-1 for Saturn 1 had similar problems, though on a smaller scale. Rosen's Viking Rocket Story mentions screeching as a big problem for the Reaction Motors Inc engineers who did that engine (~1% the size of the F-1!), and how it almost invariably led to violent explosions whenever it occurred. Of course that engine, the F-1, and even the SSME, are "old technology", and I imagine that nowadays, given the factor of a million or so improvement in computer capabilities since those experiences, designers can model things better than was conceivable then. But, given the complexity of the coupled mechanical vibration / gas-dynamic / combustion / thermal problem, I suspect that it is still basically a nightmare.

Really appreciate all the effort you have put into that article. It is close to the core of space exploration's practical reality (& thus to my heart), and deserves to be good. I certainly wouldn't want to create problems for you as a cheap-shot kibbitzer. We could paste this discussion into the article talk page if you want, and see if any of our other experts have good ideas and knowledge. Anyhow, based on all the work you have done, I think you are in charge of the article (as much as anyone ever is in the Wiki madhouse!) at this point, and I won't argue too much.

Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no I'm not in charge of it really, i've just been stuffing info in there, and it's horribly unreferenced at the moment; but everything I've put in there could (to the best of my ability) be referenced (except for any inevitable screw-ups).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly feel free to add more, since you've got access to a copy of Sutton you're actually as qualified as I am...- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The only other gotcha we have here is that this article is supposed by a general article on rocket engines (including hybrid and solids), whereas other articles cover liquid fuelled rocket engines specifically. I keep accidentally confusing the two and having to move stuff around, but it's worth bearing in mind.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I really wish the rocket engine article was limited to liquid rocket engines, which I think are a core technology driving space exploration for now, with a good robust article on solid rocket motors, which are also important. (And the water rockets off in a little nook or cranny!) Being a Wiki newbie, I better read up on the other articles to get the lay of the land. Wwheaton (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, not all rocket engines are liquid, and it's actually worse than that! Not all liquid rockets are bipropellant, and not all bipropellant rockets are liquid(!) Also, the up and coming NASA vehicle 'stick' uses a big solid for the manned part ;-)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW my understand of the F-1 is just what you've written above, they had a terrible time getting it to work, and combustion instability was the main cause, and instabilities caused frequent failures; it's just the mechanism, I think it was more of a thermal thing, but i'd have to check my copy (or huzel and huang) as well to be absolutely certain.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Just looking at Sutton & Ross, Rocket Propulsion Elements; I have only an older 4th edition from 1975. Chapter 8, Sec 6 (Combustion) & especially Sec 7 (Combustion Instability) has a good (very sobering!) discussion of "chugging", "buzzing", and "screaming" or "screeching", the latter two being described as "the most destructive, capable of destroying an engine in much less than 1 sec". They do mention destruction of the boundary layer as being a typical characteristic of these problems, but also call for pressure fluctuations of no more than 5% about the mean as characterizing "smooth combustion". So I think it is correct to call it a coupled mechanical / gas-dynamic / combustion issue. I don't really have a strong opinion where it should go in the article, but I do think the effect of coupling between the different aspects affecting instability, and the problem of positive, destructive feedback occurring at resonant frequencies ought to be mentioned. If you have the 7th edition (referenced in the article) available (and assuming it has retained the basic material), that could be referenced to satisfy the fact tag I see you inserted on my addition to the mechanical issues subsection; or I can put it in from my copy.

It is conceivable that all these concerns are anachronistic what with the computer modeling programs that exist today, about which I am not very up-to-date. I have a maybe old-fashioned worry that the community wisdom peaked in the 1955-1975 period, and is being lost since. Best, Wwheaton (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again -- I just put in the ref to Sutton & Ross that I hope addresses your "fact" tag (which I therefore removed -- ? -- is that the proper procedure?). I also changed "usually" to "commonly" in the paragraph. Screeching is mentioned as causing rapid disaster in at least three references I have, so I think that is fair. Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's in the wrong section, this is an acoustic/thermal problem, not mechanical. There's no way that a high frequency sound wave can burst a rocket engine mechanically (not in just a few seconds); and your references don't say anything different.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Concorde operational cost

Dear Wolfkeeper, I noticed you reverted my edits to the Concorde article with "extreme prejudice" and stated that the links did not support what was written.

I disagree entirely, the old link was to a site of uncertain usefulness, my two new links were to a BBC and CNN newsarticles. The text in the article that I added was in reference to those two links.

Please can you explain how the old edit was superior, before you revert anything more with "extreme prejudice".

Thanks,

Alastairward (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Complex number

Although I deleted the technical details inserted into the introduction, I did not delete the part in complex number about the field of real numbers not being algebraically closed, since it's of high enough importance to mention. The other, more technical details, however, are probably not appropriate for a introduction, which should give a general reader a impression of what the article is about. Xantharius (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

By the time somebody understands what a field is, I fail to really understand how simply naming the field of reals R, and the field of complex numbers C is a 'more technical detail', it's just a name, which they may have heard of. And the bit you deleted about negative numbers being formed from squaring imaginary numbers is logical even within the context of the introduction; so I don't agree with your reversion.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Although mathematicians and people familiar with mathematical notation are not going to be bothered with naming objects by letters or reading equations, a general user might not. According to the math version of WP:MOS the opening paragraphs should be a broad summary and outline the most general concepts involved. Notation and other matters, unless vital, are better left to other sections, and, as far as I can tell, most Wikipedia articles abide by that.

The blackboard letter notation is mentioned in the very next section. I do not feel that the property that negative numbers are formed from squares of complex numbers is important enough to include in the opening paragraphs, but it may well be important enough to include in later sections. I agreed with you about the importance of the real numbers not being an algebrically closed field, but I should have given more details about my objections: they were not about the content but about its location. It cannot be the case that every property of the complex numbers is important enough to include in the lead (especially if one has to use an equation to do it), and I felt that these should go further down in the article. Xantharius (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Etiquette

I don't appreciate that you just overwrote my comment on the ball bearing talk page (see [4]). See WP:talk for proper talk page etiquette. Thanks... --Wizard191 (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Conversion of units

Hi—while I suspect I agree with your reasons for deleting a big chunk of this page, it would be nice to know what they are. I encourage you to use edit summaries for such large-scale changes. Thanks. —johndburger 13:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted the how-to.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

many thanks for your support - moslanka article

dear Wolfkeeper  : many thanks for your support in the debate for my article moslanka , you have rightly stated that im a new article writer and an inexperienced member , i pledge to improve my work . iv done all necessary change needed , kindly visit my article and if possible kindly inform me the necessary change .

moreover i wish to request you to kindly guide me to get a copy of my other article TF Quasar International that was deleted instantly after an notice was sent to my talk page , i was not even given some time to edit or reverse my article , had i been warned or asked i sure would have done the needful . and i assure you that if the copy is given i would carefully edit it or reverse it according to encyclopedia standard . regardsPearllysun (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

dear Wolfkeeper : iv edited the article as a 3rd party style and even removed the contact details , and you have supported to keep it and never voted against it . do inform me or if possible assist me how to modify it if needed to be so .regardsPearllysun (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it needs to have external reliable sources that are uninvolved parties, that refer to this company, so that we can evaluate what you say about it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

People scratching themselves behind their ears

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article People scratching themselves behind their ears, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of People scratching themselves behind their ears. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of People scratching themselves behind their ears

An article that you have been involved in editing, People scratching themselves behind their ears, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People scratching themselves behind their ears. Thank you. Daniel (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning on OR

Actually, the page you created falls under Wikitionary, and thus, you must look at the page yourself. The page as it was before was encyclopedic. You changed it from such and used OR to do such. I suggest you revert it now according to your own standards as you put forth. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If you cannot see that the entry that you have created is exactly the same as wikitionary, then I suggest that you need to go look at wikitionary, and see that you removed any encyclopedic qualities from the entry. You are severely mistaken and you acted in a way that violates many of Wikipedia's policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Plenum Chamber Burning

Wolf, since you seem to be the resident guru, I thought I'd start wtih you. Do you have any information or sources that could be used to start an article on Plenum Chamber Burning (PCB), or perhaps a section on the Afterburner page if there's not enough info/notability for a full article? Any thoughts? - BillCJ (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Resident guru on turbojets and rockets, I meant to say. - BillCJ (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know anything about that really.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I think I'll try to find a reliable source from the Harrier/P.1154 pages, and add a brief explanation on the Afterburner page, with a redirect from Plenum Chamber Burning to the section. Perhaps someone else will have some knowledge andr better sources, and be able to add some more. Thanks anyway. - BillCJ (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:NASA_bipropellant_GPN-2000-000548.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NASA_bipropellant_GPN-2000-000548.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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. 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, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 16:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:NASA_bipropellant_Lrockth.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:NASA_bipropellant_Lrockth.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MECU≈talk 16:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study

Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice of Pending Action RE: User:Arcayne

A Wikiquette_Alerts section has been opened regarding User:Arcayne. Interested Wiki Editors may add comments here:[5]05:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Complex number

Do you have any actual objection to the change? Editing articles without discussing first is the normal course of business, so I'm surprised by the edit summary when you reverted me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do actually. You seem to be projecting a particular way of thinking about complex numbers on to the article which, while a fairly valid point of view, I think that some people may not actually find helpful.

Additionally, I think in a formal sense they aren't simply extended reals; and even informally you are fudging things slightly, because you aren't able to easily say in the introduction in what ways they are approximately extended reals, so you're setting up a hanging concept that will be bothering the reader as they read through the article.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be polite to mention such objections when you revert, rather than saying you are reverting because the matter wasn't discussed first. We can discuss this further on the talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been massively discussed before on the talk page.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked - you haven't edited either the article or the talk page for a month or so before today. So a new discussion may be in order there. The issue of this article arose in a discussion at WT:WPM about use of the term "formal" in definitions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, if it hasn't been discussed for a month, then the definition of complex numbers must have changed then!- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As I think about it, I'm sorry that my comments have been so sharp. Everyone is trying to improve the article here, and I'm sure I can find a way to do it more collegially. We all have the same goal of producing a high-quality, well-referenced article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Flying car (aircraft)

I noticed you moved Flying car to Flying car (aircraft) with the explanation "It's about aircraft". Are you planning on creating at something at Flying car, either an article or a DAB? If not, "(aircraft)" is really unnecessary disambiguation. - BillCJ (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I created flying car (fiction) by picking some of the material that had earlier been deleted from flying car, I left the fly car as a possible future disamb, but redirected it to the existing article. It seemed to be good style to do that, and the new title of flying car (aircraft) helped ensure that people know where they were, it's a bit clearer I think. I think that people know that (aircraft) tends to be about real aircraft.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds good to me. The Kevin Smith film The Flying Car makes three articles, which is a good start for a DAB page. I don't mind doing it, but I thought I'd ask tour opinion first. - BillCJ (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a fair number of links to flying car right now so I would guess you'd want to create flying car (disambiguate), and leave the default page pointing to where it is and reference it to the disamb, but I'm not sure it's much better at the end of the day. Either that or install the disamb at flying car and move all the existing links, if you've got a semi-automated tool or time on your hands it would be fine. I'm not sure, 3's marginal, but do it if you want.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Old Werdnabot archive

{{AutoArchivingNotice}}

me.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Space Elevator power for climbers.

Thankyou for contacting me. I didn't know who or how to contact anyone, I figured if I was annoying enough someone would contact me. I believe that the statement about solar power not being feasible is false if applied only above the atmosphere. I certainly would like to see proof that solar power cannot work, but the link is broken (or removed). If the person who made that statement is no longer willing to back it up, maybe they changed their mind. Can you either remove the claim or provide proof?--Innov8tor (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It works, but it's too slow to be practical. Energy up an elevator near the ground goes as mgh. At speed v that's mgv. You want the elevator car going at 200km/h+. m=5000 kg or so. Assume say, 3 kg/kW of solar panel (probably in the ballpark it's normally between 1 and 10 for spacecraft).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, please don't add Original research to the wikipedia either. Unless you can reference it, it will be removed.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal

Wolfkeeper;

I have been reading your pages and following your links. I am very impressed by your organization and accomplishments. I share most of your interests, but have not worked at them as you have. I also agree with almost everything I have read (except of course my pet peev about the suitability of solar power for the Space Elevator).

I should add that I do not think that the space elevator will ever be pratical even if possible, as all orbits will eventualy intersect with it and the maintenance required to avoid collisions will not be worth the benefits. However it is a facinating concept. High strenth carbon nanotube derived cable will have many benefits including a role in access to space.

I support the concept of a space tether assisted launch with a scram-jet delivery craft as the most promising approach. Since reading about the Lostrum Loop, I think it has a role in this concept. Assume a space-based Lostrum loop involving a ring of satelites around Earth, instead of rotating synchronized with Earth, they are at about 2/3 to 3/4 velocity so a tether from one attaches to the almost half orbital speed of the aircraft and flings it to orbital speed at the top of its cycle. The cable in this case is relatively short, only about 100km, but has to be very strong. In order for the tether not to intersect with the pellet stream, there could be two parallel streams spaced far enough apart to allow for rotation of the tether and loads to go between the streams.

I would be interested in your opinion of this concept.

Roy Harvie--206.248.175.49 (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Space junk and micrometeorites are probably likely to be problematic for large structures in LEO.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Reactive centrifugal force

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Reactive centrifugal force, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Centrifugal force. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting other users' comments on talk pages

Wolfkeeper, I would appreciate if you would refrain from deleting other editors' comments on article talk pages without their permission as you did here [6]. One shouldn't compound poor grammar with poor manners. Cheers, --SimpleParadox 17:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't do that, there's a bug in the wikipedia server/ui that does that sometimes. I had absolutely no reason to delete your comment.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, Wolfkeeper. Happy editing. --SimpleParadox 17:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Doble quote

What about a block quote? In fact, thinking about it, the essential is the forced circulation and the small amount of working fluid. I'll have another look. Wasn't satisfied with it anyway, but it's an important point. The Doble/Pritchard boiler is an excellent shock absorber in an accident, as is the Lamont and the Velox.--John of Paris (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, it would probably be best in an 'advanced designs' section or something. Sticking it in the safety section like that was very, very clunky. Anyway, no quoting verbatim, it's illegal. Paraphrasing is normally OK.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 07:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Leslie Ash

Hi. Can you tell me in what way such bacteriological detail is appropriate in an article about an actress? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 12:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The article says "it was announced that she has MRSA". It does not say "she had MRSA". There is a difference. This content deatil is irrelevant in an article about an actress. If you want to treat an Admin's corrections of fact and weight in an article as vandalism, please feel free to raise a request for comment. Meanwhile, please also remember civility policy. --Rodhullandemu 18:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The link doesn't even say that she announced she had MRSA, it said she announced that she had MSSA. If this harassment of me, and repeated, apparently deliberate inclusion of falsehoods in articles continues then I will take the normal steps. Now leave me the heck alone.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Trying to ensure an article is factually accurate, well-sourced, and does not contain irrelevant information is not harassment, it is discussion. If you're somehow frightened of that, please feel free to complain to the appropriate notice board. --Rodhullandemu 18:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Repeatedly editing the article to include falsehoods that are in direct opposition to associated links, and then hassling people on their talk page when you reinsert them is though.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And in what way is merely asking a question (which you have yet to answer) harassment? I will fix the article later. Meanwhile, if you have a problem with this, please take it to WP:ANI. --Rodhullandemu 18:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I already did answer your question, what you twice edited the article to read was a fabrication; there is no evidence that she announced any such thing. Now stop harassing me, or I very much will treat this as ANI.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

History of science section in centrifugal force

I've now started a section on the historical development of the modern conception of centrifugal force in that article. I am by no means an expert in the history of science, and I'm unsure about how the references I've cited hold together: I'd greatly appreciate it if you could please review the material I have added so far. There appears to be significant work on this topic by Domenico Bertoloni Meli (for example, [7], [8]), however, most of the interesting papers on this subject are behind a paywall and inaccessible to me. -- The Anome (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Soviet war in Afghanistan

You state that "diversity rather than homogenity is enhanced by lack of mixing of one form or another". This statement is counterintuitive. It seems clearly illogical (at least to me) that a given geographically isolated country would develop a MORE ethnically and linguistically diverse culture than would another country that is centrally located and easily accessible by foreigners. Do you believe, for example, that nations with very liberal immigration laws are inherently LESS likely to be ethnically/linguistically diverse? Please explain the logic behind your assertion. -Grammaticus Repairo (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Only that homogeneity and heterogeneity are different. You seem to be confusing the two.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting troll comments

You recently deleted a comment on a talk page: [9] I'm just wondering if it was accidental or on purpouse? Granted, that IP is almost certainly a troll, but in that particular edit, there were no personal attacks or other obvious signs of trolling, and your edit summary gives no explanation. I don't object to your removal per se. In fact, I've stated before that I'd like to see that troll reverted and blocked on sight[10], but I think it needs to be done carefully and with good explanations unless the trolling that you revert is very obvious. Happy editing. --PeR (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, we've no way of knowing 100% whether it is or isn't him, but:

• It was self-admittedly attempting to express the same points of view as Tombe
• It knew that Tombe had been blocked
• It was using an anonymous IP, as Tombe did
• IMO it sounded indistinguishable from how Tombe trying to avoid the block would have sounded.
• There was no point in answering him anyway, whether it was a troll or not.

All in all, any way you cut it, a waste of space and contributors time, and so I deleted it. Finally, even if it wasn't Tombe, I don't think it matters to the wikipedia (meatpuppet)

I suppose I should have given a subject, but it was kind of difficult to summarise. - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Lack of information in picture.

Dear Wolfkeeper did you see the below message in the picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_engine which you uploaded to Wikipedia?

"This media has no author information, and may be lacking other information. Media should have a summary to inform others of the content, author, source, and date if possible. If you know or have access to such information, please add it to the image page."

Zimbres (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Coriolis effect

OK; we need a disambiguation page.Brews ohare (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not if there's only two. Are there more?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Engine

I am not saying that jet engines aren't engines, because they do provided reciprocating/catalystic motion. It's just that you need to show some proof that there were some mechanical components that provided in conjunction with the principle of thrust. The last sentence that used to be here was written without my knowledge.InternetHero (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Which bit of the definition of internal combustion engine in the article don't you understand? Where does 'reciprocating/catalystic' feature in the definition?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 12:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

[11] gas turbines are internal combustion engines.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 12:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no mechanical processes other than the advent of fuel. The internal combustion engine, as many people know it, involves many mechanics. InternetHero (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole freaking vehicle moves at extreme speed, and you claim that's not mechanical???? What is it, an optical illusion? ;-)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 12:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, the encyclopedia britannica says that rocket engines are internal combustion engines, actually their definition is extremely similar to ours.[12]- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 12:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Too bad you can't source it. I think the rocket is under continuous combustion engines. The timeline here is suppose to be directly connected to the internal combustion engine. I don't see how one similarity like fuel can be used to dislodge the lineage of this section. InternetHero (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a lineage, and it matters that it isn't. It's a history list and the article is about internal combustion engines, and rockets are internal combustion engines.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing from a falsehood; namely you think that rockets aren't internal combustion engines; but the Encyclopedia Britannica link above, and the wikipedia's definition disagrees with you.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss it here any more. If you want to discuss it, you need to disucss it at internal combustion engine's talk.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Launch loops

Yes, the launch loop has no tower. But there are 2 loading platforms for getting the cargo onto the launch loop, and these platforms are 80 km off the ground. It seems fairly obvious to me that these platforms can't be attached to the launch loop itself. So the remaining solutions are 1) build a tower) 2) build a flying, hovering platform that can hover at 80 km high. I don't think anybody has a solution for a hovering platform that can operate at 80 km high, so we would need towers. And according to the article, the deployment of a launch loop would most likely be over open water, which adds additional complexity in building the tower. We are many years from being able to build an 80 km tall tower. The first 1 km tall tower has only recently been seriously proposed, in Australia, and it is not going to be moving cargo up its height, just channeling hot air up past turbofans. There is also a nice theoretical idea in Japan for making a gigantic tower (don't remember how tall) to house population, and actually provide for the majority of their needs, but they can't have a serious proposal until they can get some rather large development and property rights in downtown Tokyo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.41.41.243 (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no tower, the loading dock rests on the launch loop at the top, and there's elevator cables hanging down. (Very, very long elevator cables- IMO probably in the form of looped sections hanging off a core that exponentially tapers down to the ground.)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Launch loops

Yes, the launch loop has no tower. But there are 2 loading platforms for getting the cargo onto the launch loop, and these platforms are 80 km off the ground. It seems fairly obvious to me that these platforms can't be attached to the launch loop itself. So the remaining solutions are 1) build a tower) 2) build a flying, hovering platform that can hover at 80 km high. I don't think anybody has a solution for a hovering platform that can operate at 80 km high, so we would need towers. And according to the article, the deployment of a launch loop would most likely be over open water, which adds additional complexity in building the tower. We are many years from being able to build an 80 km tall tower. The first 1 km tall tower has only recently been seriously proposed, in Australia, and it is not going to be moving cargo up its height, just channeling hot air up past turbofans. There is also a nice theoretical idea in Japan for making a gigantic tower (don't remember how tall) to house population, and actually provide for the majority of their needs, but they can't have a serious proposal until they can get some rather large development and property rights in downtown Tokyo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.41.41.243 (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no tower, the loading dock rests on the launch loop at the top, and there's elevator cables hanging down. (Very, very long elevator cables- IMO probably in the form of looped sections hanging off a core that exponentially tapers down to the ground.)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Internal combustion engine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You and another editor are both involved in an edit dispute, and are about to breach 3RR, so I'm notifying you both. It doesn't matter who is "right" or "wrong" - you shouldn't be edit warring. -- Mark Chovain 02:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of breaching 3RR, but while I initially assumed good faith his edits do not appear to be in good faith, and have included editing my words in talk and removal of valid references. He has been banned before more than once, and he has left a strange message on my talk page.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep - I was reminding you just in case :). It happens too often that two warring users both get blocked. When the second editor is working with consensus behind them, they can easily sit back and wait for another editor to revert. I agree that IH's behaviour surrounding the ICE article is strange: Their interpretation of GDFL would prevent almost all reliable sources, and they themselves frequently reference copyright material - everything from books to YouTube (!!!). Feel free to remove the above warning (or this whole section) if you feel it's cluttering up your page. -- Mark Chovain 03:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting in a dispute, but I would like to point out that you did violate 3RR on July 1. See 1,2,3,4. Please avoid that in the future. Thanks. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 23:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I did in no way do that. 3 and 4 are adding new material to the article, which is still there, and wasn't there previously.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I wasn't quite sure myself which is why I prepended my ANI statement with "I believe", which was started by User:InternetHero. Again, sorry for any grief this may have caused you. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft engine

A user has recently expanded Aircraft engine beyond its original coverage of piston engines to include turbines. Would you mind keeping an eye on this article? The user has added more on the talk page about what he wants to add, but the last time he asked for advice, he totally ignored my responses, so I'm not going to comment to him anymore. A second brain to look over his changes and addtions would be much appreciated, if you have the time. Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at it extremely quickly, he seems to be doing the right kind of thing, IMO articles probably should be as general as possible provided they don't overlap too much. From what you're saying he may not be going about it in generally the best way, but he probably should be encouraged and channelled rather than curtailed.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the second opinion. That's why I asked. - BillCJ (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

turn based vs. interrupted thread mode

Thank you for working to keep Wikipedia technically accurate.

Your recent edits[13] lead me to believe you haven't yet read "turn based vs. interrupted thread mode". --68.0.124.33 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've read it, but I don't agree with it. The talk features of the wikipedia are broken, and all ways of using it have some downsides. I in no way disagree that interrupted thread mode has some disadvantages, but it also has many advantages which overall outweigh them.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad

I'm glad we can come up with a solutoin together. I never had a problem with the rocket being in the article. I just had a problem with it being in the timeline as it was mostly related to the reciprocation classificaton. I did a lot of work of work correcting the grammar but the punctuatoins are almost always a perogative, so it's not completely satisfyable. Anyway, I'll try to help. BTW, could you add an extra colon to the discussion entitled, "Split the page"? It just makes it easier to read. InternetHero (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I love about Wikipedia - all three of us came into the discussion with wildly differing views, and we look like we're getting somewhere :). -- Mark Chovain 20:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You're obviously annoyed by my presense enough to revert my edits at the slightest touch. All I did was add mechanisms that are stated in the references under the clause, "most IC-engines". I don't see you're problem here. I will keep trying to be reasonable until I feel you have gone too far. I have a feeling you want me to feel this way so I'm gong to turn the other cheek. 69.60.229.218 (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's much simpler than that, I just disagreed with your edit. The point of the sentence is that the defining feature of internal combustion engines is that the hot gases push on a piston, on a turbine or a nozzle. The fact that that force causes forces elsewhere in the engine, on the crank on the connecting rods, or even on the tyre rubber; that doesn't make it an internal combustion engine or not.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And I cannot emphasise enough; we are not defining *most* engines, we are defining *all* internal combustion engines here.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That's where I don't understand you. By your definition of "all", you think we should exclude "all" ICEs. If I'm not mistaken, almost "all" ICEs use the crank, con rod, or cam mechanisms. So how do you manage to exclude some concepts under the pretense of "all", yet promote your own singular point of view. I really don't understand your logic here. InternetHero (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the Encyclopedia Britannica article definition/introduction, it's essentially the same as ours, it does not mention cranks, con rods or cams.

If I hand you an engine, from the definition, you should be able to tell me whether it is an internal combustion engine or not. Most steam engines have con rods, cams and cranks as well, so that doesn't help.

The definition in the article, that the moving parts that do useful work are driven by the combusted gases is what tells you that it is an internal combustion engine, so you just work out whether that's true or not, and then you know. Right?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

for trampling all over your edits at Power-to-weight ratio. The article has been untouched for months and both of us try to fix the same section at the same time, what are the odds? henrik•talk 13:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well-educated ants

Hi Wolfkeeper. Your James Bond's joke was very nice. Would you mind to join us on User talk:PeR? We are discussing about Rracecarr's ant and its "feelings". Paolo.dL (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read your comment on User talk:PeR. Would you mind to read this short subsection

Gabriel Murphy

The article was restored to mainspace following a deletion review which you can find at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 28. DuncanHill (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Magnetic Sail

Perhaps you would like to make some comment on the talk page of Magnetic sail about what parts of the criticism section added by User BKruglyak should be kept. In my opinion, the added section is entirely unhelpful in its current form.--Dashpool (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your disappearing comment!

...on my talk page.[14] I was responding but I'll withhold that if you don't think it's worth discussing. Thanks for the background though - Wikidemo (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Translation with no acceleration

On Talk:Centrifugal force you wrote:

"Just do a coordination translation to everything in the eccentric frame so that the origin now rests on the rotation axis. Since a translation doesn't change any accelerations you have now created the same situation as the article covers."...

A translation may change acceleration. In this case, it doesn't because the position of the new origin, as seen from the old frame, (i.e. the translation vector) is fixed, i.e. time-invariant. In the case of a particle moving along an S-shaped path, or any non-circular and non-rectilinear path (this is the situation described in the article, isn't it?), the translation vector is time-variant, and it has non-null second derivative.

Believe me, there's no way to give an answer to my question using just mathematics. For instance, in the article about fictitious forces, in the example about orbiting (but not rotating) frames, you have a situation in which it becomes clear that the fictitious force that we conventionally call "centrifugal" actually appears in the orbiting frame as a uniform force field (every point in the orbiting frame is acted upon by the same centrifugal force), rather than radial! It appears clear that calling this force centrifugal is just an arbitrary decision. You might very well call it "universal force" or whatever. This is yet another example in which what we call centrifugal force does not depend on position.

Math just tells us we have a fictitious force. We all know how to compute this force, but formulas give us a number, they don't give us a name for that number. The problem is just how you decide to call it (and of course, how the scientific community agreed to call it by convention).

Now, according to you, PeR, and Brews, the world agreed to call it centrifugal; I am not 100% sure that all authors agree about that, but I actually don't care, as long as you all agree! And I am glad we can simplify our task by adopting a conventional answer on which we all agree.

Does all of this make sense to you? Paolo.dL (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not completely....- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

After reading my recent comment about the car along S-shaped trajectory on Talk:centrifugal force, did you change your mind about the non-null second derivative of the translation vector? (please answer in this page) Paolo.dL (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you just need to include Euler, coriolis and frame acceleration forces themselves as the center of the frame rotation moves and frame rotation speed changes. But it's all very messy and I don't think it's worth worrying about too much.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sentence about frames accelerating relative to each other

From previous section: ... In the case of a particle moving along an S-shaped path, or any non-circular and non-rectilinear path (this is the situation described in the article, isn't it?), the translation vector is time-variant, and it has non-null second derivative. ... Paolo.dL (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

From User talk:Paolo.dL: No. The translation vector is due to the reference frame origin being offset from the rotation axis for the frame. Any particle who moves within the reference frame has nothing whatsoever to do with it; the *translation* is a fixed coordinate mapping for the entire frame.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

After reading my recent comment about the car along S-shaped trajectory on Talk:centrifugal force, did you change your mind about this? Do you agree that the two non-inertial frames accelerate relative to each other? I.e., do you agree that the translation vector from each other is time-variant, and its 2nd derivative is not null? (I cannot understand your point: of course, for any instant of time, the translation is valid for the entire frame, but this has nothing to do with the 2nd derivative of the translation vector). Paolo.dL (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't find the question, if I understand it, particularly interesting. The driver can be considered to be accelerating between rotating reference frames that are centered on his instantaneous center of curvature. In each of those reference frames he is subject to centrifugal and coriolis force.

If you try to analyse it from the frame of reference where the driver is the origin, you have the additional complication that the axis of frame rotation doesn't coincide with the origin. The frame is then a fully accelerated one.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am just trying to understand your comment. The sentence we are discussing actually explains the reason why the S-shaped motion (the third example used in Talk:centrifugal force) is different and more interesting than a rotation about a fixed axis (the previous two examples in Talk:centrifugal force). The interesting difference is that the two non-inertial frames (attached to driver, and attached to center of curvature) are not equivalent when the car moves along and S-shaped trajectory, because they accelerate with respect to each other (although they rotate at the same rate). On the contrary, in my previous example (car running along circular path = "orbiting and rotating" body), the two non-inertial frames were almost perfectly equivalent (i.e. neither moving nor accelerating relative to each other). Your "no" seemed to deny this difference. This difference is important because it is the reason why you are almost forced to choose the LCS system (i.e. the system fixed to the car driver, the most natural system for him/her). Did your "no" become a "yes"? If it is still a "no", I warn you that I still cannot understand it, and this might hinder our discussion. Paolo.dL (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Orbit Unclarity

I read the article, Orbit, and I don't understand the cannonball scenario. Don't projectiles, such as the cannonball, follow parabolic paths? I suppose the eccentricity is an absolute value thing in this case where the orbit goes from parabolic to elliptical to circular to elliptical, then parabolic, again, and finally to hyperbolic. According to geometry, the eccentricity cannot be negative. I know that the shape of the orbit depends on the energy, i.e. the velocity. I suppose it's a matter of speed. For circular, neglecting air resistance, v=Failed to parse (syntax error): {\displaystyle (GM/r)^½} Kissnmakeup (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Cannonballs are never parabolic, although the difference from parabolic flight (ignoring air drag) is extremely small in most everday circumstances. They're always elliptical, basically because the Earth surface is not flat. If the Earth was flat, then they would be parabolic.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(Actually, if you're being really pinickity, they're not elliptical either, they would only be elliptical if the Earth was perfectly spherically symmetric, but let's not go there.)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW eccentricity is not primarily a matter of speed, although it is involved, for any given speed it's a matter of the direction at a point on the orbit.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

More orbits

Thank you.

I'm studying for the GRE Physics test, and I have a question about a problem on an old practice test. Would you want to give it a whirl?

The problem is this (Test 9677 problem#66):

When it is about the same distance from the Sun as is Jupiter, a spacecraft on a mission to the outer planets has a speed that is 1.5 times the speed of Jupiter in its orbit. Which of the following describes the orbit of the spacecraft about the Sun? A) Spiral, B) Circle, C) Ellipse, D) Parabola, E) Hyperbola.

ETS says (E) Hyperbola. I say bull. According to Mechanics by Keith Symon, the shape of the orbital depends on the total energy, not just the kinetic energy. The mass of Jupiter is about 1.8 x 10^27 kg, while the Mars Global is about 1030 kg. This is a massive difference in potential energy. Does it not matter in light of the mass of the Sun which is 1048 Jupiters? I would think that it would matter. I mean, multiply it out. GMm/r Kissnmakeup (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Because you told me it's homework, I'll give you just one hint: it's the specific total energy (total energy per kg) that matters, not the total energy.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not homework. This is a practice test from 1996, with published answers. I just don't agree with the answer that ETS published for it. But, I really appreciate your response. Thanks. Kissnmakeup (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Really, it's a specific energy/escape velocity question, right? The mass of the body itself cancels out in the equations. (Actually the deep knowledge is that it's to do with Galileo all things fall the same under gravity.) The escape velocity at Jupiter's orbit is 18.5 km/s, and the orbital velocity is 13.07 km/s. Since 1.5*13.07 > 18.5 then it's a hyperbola.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Duh.

Thanks. Was it Galieo or Newton? Regardless, I was not happy with that classical mechanics book when I took the class, and I'm even less happy with it now. I'm getting a different one, and maybe even an astrodynamics text. All this orbit stuff is making my head spin.Kissnmakeup (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Galileo. You probably heard the (probably apocryphal) story about cannonballs and the tower of piza etc. etc.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Magnetic levitation

I just noticed a massive deletion of content from that article. I'm assuming, based on your edit history, that it wasn't intentional on your part, but I wanted to let you know I reverted it. --GoodDamon 23:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Access to the server messed up, and a combination of misfeatures messed up the text.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

InternetHero

Enough is enough[15] - We've tried; we're failing. I'm going to put together an RFC for InternetHero, in the hope that others can help him change his behaviour to become a more a more effective editor, and more productive member of this community. Assuming you feel the statement and summary of the evidence that I put together are accurate, would you agree to endorse the request? (Note: I'm crossposting this to DigitalC) -- Mark Chovain 01:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that would be OK.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A request for comment on user conduct has been filed regarding this issue at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InternetHero. Your participation there would be appreciated. - DigitalC (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Penis Size Graphs - Source(s)

Hello there! I was just curious as to where you got your penis size information data from that you used to create the graphs with. I know it was Ansell Research that carried out the information for Lifestyles Condoms. I know the average figures from that research are easy enough to come across but the other measurements to create graphs? I'd much appreciate any light you can shed on this matter. --Assisting Wiki (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't remember. Might have been on USENET or something.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal force in general curvilinear coordinates

Hi Wolfkeeper: I had thought that my discussion of deletion of this section was pretty clear and thorough. In addition, there has been a lot of earlier discussion of the same topics on the talk page, and Fugal has simply done an end run, publishing this section, and avoiding the contrary citations and quotations I have brought up on the Talk page. In my view, and that of the citations and quotations I have provided, this new subsection is an erroneous and unnecessary addition to the article. I am shocked, shocked, shocked that you have not supported its complete removal.

I think that he's right that curvilinear coordinates are somewhat apropros to centrifugal force, but much of the presentation is rather poorly written, and makes some claims that cannot be entirely substantiated.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, curvilinear coordinates provide a general framework. However: (i) Only the simple versions like polar coordinates are at all necessary at this level, and (ii) Fugal has not provided a treatment in the general case using Christoffel symbols, only some rather unclear and possibly incorrect blah-blah-blah. My bet is that he will have to look pretty hard to find a treatment to cite in support: there just isn't one. And (iii) there is no way to duck the "state-of-motion" issue without gutting the entire article. Yes, there are two uses of the same terminology. Yes, it is confusing and unfortunate. Brews ohare (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There's not a level, there's a curve, and I think it's a good idea to show pointers to more/less general treatments; a key strength of the wikipedia is in its interconnectedness, as well as its large scope.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that scope is a forte. There is no general treatment using curvilinear coordinates anywhere in Wiki, and I've not found one in the literature either. So there is not much to point to, eh? Fugal's introduction of the term "Christoffel symbol" is not a treatment, and is not useful - there just is no content. And having introduced this "mystery" jargon he can attach to it all his pet ideas, willy-nilly. Brews ohare (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Where do you reservations about taking it out come from? It is evident that Fugal is not interested in any technical discussion, although he is always ready to reiterate his view that "state-of-motion" has nothing to do with centrifugal force. In my view, I have done all I can here: an intransigent editor impervious to citations and reason is not something that can be handled.

He's not as bad as Tombe in that regard, he does actually understand the topic, but he wishes to give undue weight and is coloring the text rather. But he's not Tombe, and he's coming from a rational point of view. But I think that curvilinear coordinates probably need to be mentioned.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You are a generous person. I see little to support your kind stance. In particular, unlike Tombe, Fugal avoids all discussion that clearly counters his views. Tombe at least admits that he is an iconoclast and does not believe Newton. In contrast, look at the lack of responsiveness in Talk:Centrifugal_force#Fugal.27s_sources and Talk:Centrifugal_force#Fugal.27s_positions. You may feel it is too much trouble to check into these matters, but Fugal also cites sources that have no bearing on the argument, and quotes sources using words that Fugal has defined in a different way than they are used by the quoted author. He also selects items out of context, that with a fuller reading would provide a different view. Brews ohare (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Editors in the wikipedia all need to assume good faith, and edit according the policies of the wikipedia. I don't think that wholesale deletion of other's contributions is a good idea by and large, particularly if they show some good-faith to reference their work, then it should be fitted in somewhere in the wikipedia.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wolfkeeper: I am not clear what you mean here. I'd guess that requiring response to clearly stated and cited counterargument is a requirement, without which there is just no purpose in the Talk page. Perhaps I should simply post my counterarguments in the article proper and let the reader decide, inasmuch as there is no serious attempt at discussion on the Talk page? Brews ohare (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying chill right now, and let the wikipedia's processes and community deal with it a little; I'm thinking that most of this material will fit better elsewhere.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

To this I might add that I have provided not only verbal explanation of my objections but detailed mathematical analysis (also supported by citations). In contrast, Fugal has provided a lot of verbiage and misquotations, and no response to these arguments.

I also have provided all the diagrams and simple examples in this article, with the exception of the "potential energy" subsection, which are based upon my understanding of the subject (and my citations). Perhaps these examples and figures should be removed as well, inasmuch as they conflict with Fugal's rants.

Well, it's not actually your article, he has every right to add material provided it's basically on-topic and verifiable and doesn't give undue weight.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The point was not that I have ownership, but that consistency requires removal of this material.Brews ohare (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This malaise also extends to fictitious force, inertial frame, frame of reference, observer (special relativity), classical mechanics and many more. I would suggest (facetiously) that they all be modified to description in terms of Christoffel symbols with "absolute meaning". Brews ohare (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the absolute meaning type of stuff is in my opinion a load of bull. If he can give what the people on the talk page consider an excellent reference for that claim then it gets to stick, but I'm kinda betting he will not be able to do so in any way.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It probably should be mentioned in lots of places, including the centrifugal force article, but I'm thinking the treatment should refer out more.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If you mean that Christoffel symbols should get more play, it should be in Christoffel symbols and a See Also link added to Centrifugal force. Brews ohare (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I just mean that the connectedness of the article to other articles is important, I don't see that Christoffel symbols should get any more treatment here at all.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert in Gerard O'Neill

I saw that you reverted a change that I made to Gerard O'Neill. In the article, the phrase "the answer appears to be no" sounds like a quote from O'Neill, which it isn't as far as I can tell. If it's not a quote, then it is kind of unencyclopedic in tone. My preference would be to remove it and let O'Neill's quote stand on its own. An alternate solution would be to reword it so it is clear that this is O'Neill's impression of the answer his students gave. Let me know what you think. Also, you reverted some other minor but helpful edits that I had made. Wronkiew (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no quote marks, so it self-evidently isn't a quote, but I consider that to be an adequate paraphrase of the attached reference. Sorry about the other edits.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote your sentence again. Let me know if you have any concerns about the new wording. Wronkiew (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Heat Engine and Steam engine

I am taking the liberty of answering here as this issue seems to be of peculiar concern to you but does not appear to exercise other editors to same degree. To get the ball rolling, here are two quotations from my undergraduate text books:

• Van Wylen & Sontag, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, Wiley, 1965, pp 157-8: "A heat engine may be defined as a device that operates in a thermodynamic cycle and does a certain amount of net positive work as a result of heat transfer from a high temperature body and to a low temperature body. Often the term heat engine is used in a broader sense to include all devices that produce work, either through heat transfer or combustion, even though the device does not operate in a thermodynamic cycle. The internal combustion engine and the gas turbine are examples of such devices, and calling these heat engines is an acceptable use of the term."

• Spalding & Cole, Engineering Thermodynamics, Arnold, 3rd edn, 1973, pp 203-4: "The Heat Engine A definition which is logically sufficient is: A heat engine is a continuously operatating system at the boundary of which there are heat and work interactions.

Explanatory remarks.

1. "Continuously operating" means that the state of the system exhibits only periodic changes; the phrase covers both rotary and reciprocating machines. If a working fluid is present it must undergo cyclic processes.
2. Since a system is in question, the internal-combustion engine cannot be classed as a heat engine. Matter flows continuously into and out of an internal-combustion engine.
3. The steam power plant, as described above, is covered by the definition; the contents of the boundary in Fig. 10.1 comprise a system. If, however, the boundary were enlarged to include the combustion space of the boiler, it would enclose a control volume, not a system; for in addition to the heat and work interactions at the boundary, the air, fuel and flue gas would flow across it. The plant enclosed by this enlarged boundary would cease to be a heat engine in the sense defined above.
4. The turbine itself is not a heat engine, for steam flows both in and out. A reciprocating steam engine, if understood to comprise merely cylinder, piston, and valve gear, is also not a heat engine, for the same reason."

These indicate that there is more than one meaning of 'heat engine', for a start. Globbet (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There always is ;-). It would be well worth adding that to the heat engine article by the way, but not in the lead. You normally want a very general definition in the lead to scope the article, and then as appropriate add more specific ones in the body to discuss the differing overlapping definitions people use in particular contexts.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The undergraduate text books are trying to be ever so precise, and I don't have any problem with that. In a text book, one or a few authors have complete control to exclude anything.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Here though, we need an encyclopedic definition upfront which covers a lot of ground, because the net sum of the reference materials 'out there' covers a lot of ground, and we're trying to cover all of it really. That's just what encyclopedias do, it's in the DNA.

Anyway, thanks for that, it's interesting, I'd more or less forgotten the completely formal definition of heat engine.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Co-rotating frames

I've added a paragraph at polar coordinates based upon Taylor's introduction of co-rotating frames. This idea allows a connection to be made between the terms in the acceleration in polar coordinates in an inertial frame and those fictitious forces in a carefully selected non-inertial co-rotating frame with the appropriate (instantaneous) angular velocity. Which is to say (i) There are no fictitious forces in the inertial frame simply as a result of using polar coordinates (in agreement with all the authorities of Classical Mechanics), although the terms in polar coordinates look appealingly like those of a rotating frame, and (ii) Yes, these terms can be interpreted in a non-inertial frame if it is suitably chosen, albeit the selected frame has to change from moment to moment.

I believe this approach comes as close as it is possible to resolving the conflict with Fugal and Timothy. There is a grain of truth (but only that) in their positions, and the co-rotating frame presents this grain as clearly as it can be done. It's not what they have said, but it has a clear relation to what they have said.

Unfortunately, the fact remains that some authors use the term "fictitious force" in a sense completely incompatible with the standard definition of "inertial frame". Thus, there still is a need to separate "coordinate" and "state-of-motion" fictitious forces. Brews ohare (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm still trying to work this out. Presumably in an instantaneous rotating frame of reference that a particular moving object happens to have only radial motion in, there is a radial centrifugal force as well as the coriolis tangential force (must be tangential since there's only radial movement in that frame), and these must be the same magnitude of forces as in the polar coordinate frame.

So isn't it the case that the rotating frame of reference is simply much more general than polar coordinates, rather than being quintessentially different?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A frame of reference refers to a "state of motion" such as rotation or any other movement. A coordinate system is a mode of description, for example Cartesian, spherical, cylindrical, not associated with motion at all, unless selected to do so by a user of the description. Hence, the answer to your question is that the two things are different altogether, physically different and mathematically different. An observer in any frame of reference (inertial or rotating for example) can elect to use any coordinate system they like (Cartesian or polar, for example). Once they choose a coordinate system they then can describe observations using that system. Of course, their observations are colored by the frame they are in, that is, choosing the coordinate system does not release them from being observers in their frame of reference.

Much of the confusion comes from tying these two different items together, and insisting that (for example) switching to polar coordinates implies switching to a rotating frame of reference. Even Stommel does not do that (he has two separate chapters: one for polar coordinates in an inertial frame, and one for polar coordinates in a rotating frame), but Timothy and Fugal and Paolo just can't let go.

As noted by Brillouin, a distinction between mathematical sets of coordinates and physical frames of reference must be made. The ignorance of such distinction is the source of much confusion… the dependent functions such as velocity for example, are measured with respect to a physical reference frame, but one is free to choose any mathematical coordinate system in which the equations are specified.

— Patrick Cornille (referring to L. Brillouin Relativity Reexamined) in Essays on the Formal Aspects of Electromagnetic Theory p. 149

Brews ohare (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Skylon

Sorry - I had been thinking exactly what you thought I had - but I guess instead aerocontainer meant a cargo container for use in air travel? --Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 21:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC) :Regarding the LAPCAT programme, the A2 article states this (albeit not cited in-line):

It is being examined as part of the LAPCAT programme of the European Union.

--Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 21:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's designated LAPCAT A2 on their website. http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/ --Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 13:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The overall European Union research program to produce an aircraft capable of flying to the opposite point on the globe is called LAPCAT and Reaction Engines A2 is one project to try to achieve that aim.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought your 'rm. unreferenced' edit was on the LAPCAT note, my fault (I should have checked the diff). --Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 12:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent deletions on Centrifugal

Recent deletions by The Anome strike me as arbitrarily ending all discussion by fiat. I am fed up that weeks of effort to clarify matters in the face of the very difficult two editors Fugal and Timothy simply was ignored, and disputed sections simply removed with no support beyond rants by these two editors. Shortsighted and arbitrary. Brews ohare (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's what happens when an article gets too verbose, editors pick bits and remove them.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Black Arrow

Why did you move Black Arrow to Black Arrow (rocket) without discussion or explanation? Undiscussed moves are only to be used for uncontroversial issues, and seeing as that move had already been discussed and rejected (which you clearly were aware of, as you participated in the discussion), it was clearly not an uncontroversial move. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There's two things here, there's the name of the article, and there's the article you reach when you type in Black Arrow. I agree that typing in Black Arrow should get your the rocket (FWIW I checked the statistics, Black Arrow (rocket) overwhelms The Black Arrow (book) in hits, so the redirect is IMHO safe), but the name of the article should really reflect the particular topic. It's just good style. - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There's also quite a bit of precedent now that using (rocket) is the norm.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the rocket is not the main article in most of these cases (eg. I created N-II (rocket) because there was already a page at N-II.) I think that a solid naming convention for rockets should be established, but all attempts to implement one seem to have failed. Personally, I think that disambiguation should only be present in titles where necessary. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether there's a standard or not, it just seems to be better style in the wikipedia that names should include their subject area. I'm sure that standardisation will follow. I really shouldn't sweat this GW, nobody is going to be removing the redirect from Black Arrow to point away from this article, it's just clearer for the users that's all.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I just don't like disambiguation for the sake of disambiguation. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 08:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Steam engine

Why have you deleted my last edit there? Globbet (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. Sorry about that. I certainly didn't mean to, and had no reason to. The wikipedias UI seems to occasionally do that without any obvious warning. It's happened about 3 or 4 times since I've been editing here.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Inductance

The new section "History" in the Inductance article is misleading, content mainly is basic definition. Did you read the old and the new versions? What now is under "History" mainly contains definitions and explanations, and only explains the origin of the names in two sentences.

The previous version was more streamlined, self and mutual inductance should occur at same level, moving mutual inductance to History is arbitrary and makes no sense.

Self and mutual inductance should be explained in the definition. Furthermore, the definition in terms of current and flux as it is now only applies to thin wires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdengler (talk • contribs) 06:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

mazda miata

i have a 1990 mazda miata mx-5 witch i wish to gain speed out of and i trying figure out if i should turbo charge it or not i dont want to charge it and the engine cant handle it and gives out on me and i was woundering if the engine components are forged or not to be safe to turbo charge it and if there are any other ideas to gain speed qiuck and easy please inform me tank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.125.37 (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Place it on a launch loop. 3g the whole way!!!- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on centrifugal force

I would like to know if you are following the discussion between Fugal and myself on centrifugal force? I'd like to know if you find my arguments convincing yourself, or still entertain doubts about the two usages for fictitious force. Brews ohare (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to those particular books, so I can't comment on to what extent either view correctly reflects the source.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you need this access to follow the discussion. Adequate quotations are provided. However, I can understand a lack of enthusiasm for getting involved. Brews ohare (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not that; as I said, I don't have access, and so I am unable to check the verifiability not truth requirements of the wikipedia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wolfkeeper: The source you need is readable on Google books (Vladimir Igorević Arnolʹd (1989). Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics (2nd Edition ed.). Springer. p. p. 130. ISBN 978-0-387-96890-2. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |page= has extra text (help)). You need focus only upon this source to follow the discussion of the section Inertial frames, which about covers the matters in dispute. If you look into matters, you will find this source is very authoritative. Brews ohare (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Pioneer article

Thank you for your comments and article edits at pioneer. This is precisely the sort of constructive input I was hoping for when I requested opinions from third parties. It remains to be seen whether the other involved party will agree with your edits, but for what it's worth I appreciate your work here. --Muchness (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Really wish you would have participated in discussion on talk page before executing your unilateral "solution"--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Please read WP:NOTADICT and follow it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are on a single topic, they do not discuss terms, they discuss subjects. A subject follows a single definition. The wikipedia is not about the history of usage of terms, it is about the history of the subject. The wikipedia is not a dictionary. If you want to contribute to a dictionary, I recommend the wiktionary[16].- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal force (planar motion)

Hi Wolfkeeper: You apparently have not read Centrifugal force (planar motion) with a lot of attention, and possibly have not read some portions at all. Perhaps it needs some work to make it more accessible? Brews ohare (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just some thoughts on your message.

Wolf,

My point in adding the advantages & disadvantages was to provide a foundation for the understanding of the aerospace plane concept to those not really familiar with it. To someone knowledgeable in the field I could go in a great deal more detail

There are both reasons that this concept (aerospace plane) is not widely used and reasons that these systems have been attempted on numerous occasions through history.

I provide the perspective of someone involved in the NASP for 7 years. I haven't provided sources because I'm not really aware of sources that discuss these topics in this way. The conclusions I have are more of a synthesis of a large body of work and not really directly quoteable - not so much anything that I'm quoting directly.

I'm not saying this information doesn't exist anywhere but I haven't had a chance to look for it.

On the airbreathing/rocket propulsion concepts: an airbreathing only aerospace plane can only acheive suborbital trajectories. Therefore, any true aeroSPACE plane must use rocket engines. So ultimately you have three possible designs categories: airbreathing only (suborbital), rocket only giving up one of the main advantages (this can be suborbital or orbital), and mixed cycle (can also be suborbital or fully orbital).

Orbital capable versions can also perform unique manuevers with their aerodynamic surfaces (e.g. synergystic plane changes) which saves substantial quantities of fuel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbatka (talk • contribs) 01:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've tidied up some of the formatting. If it was referenced, then it would be a lot better. IMO Scramjets might just barely work with extreme difficulty; but from what I've seen Skylon is a far easier and probably cheaper and much more workable design and has a better payload fraction expressed as a proportion of GLOW.

Advantages and disadvantages sections are deprecated in the wikipedia, and to make it worse IMO the 'advantages' probably aren't true advantages anyway- you don't really care about these things, you care about stuff like payload fraction and system cost- these particular 'advantages' are internal metrics, and if you look at them carefully, they're not nearly as big a win as you might expect.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Space Elevator

Hi Wolfskeeper, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought some of those tags were inappropriate. Reyk _YO! 23:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Concorde revert

Why did you revert my edit? --John (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Because somebody actually previously claimed not to know what tyre means(!) There was circumstantial evidence that they were full of it, but even so, somebody really might not know.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but one link per section should be enough to achieve that, shouldn't it? --John (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the version with just one link to the tire article on the section. If you ever revert changes I make, I always appreciate a note to let me know why you have done it. Thanks for your understanding. --John (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593

Seems to me the Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593 would be better off on its own page than at Rolls-Royce Olympus, giving us room for improvement and expansion on the Concorde engine's material. In some ways it's just a variant, but it is an important one. It could definetly use its own specs table, and having it on a separate page gets us around any objections to having 2 specs on one page. There's alot more that could be written on the engine, as you know, but right now it would overwhelm the other variants on the main page. I wanted to run this by you before being BOLD and splitting it out on my own, or proposing the split on the talk page. Thoughts? - BillCJ (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, I nearly did it myself once or twice. I even installed a redirect to be used for that, but somebody dereferenced it again, but the page is still there: Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser case completed

Hi, A checkuser IP Check case you filled has been completed by a CheckUser, and archived. You can find the results for 7 days at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive. -- lucasbfr ^talk, checkuser clerk, 11:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC).

Articles for deletion/Centrifugal force (planar motion)

I know this sort of thing is frustrating, but I think that you are close to damaging your case with all the argumentation at the AfD. Important points, sure, but too much can turn the whole discussion into just another dispute, which discourages consensus from outside editors. That said, thank you for your diligence in this area. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate

I know the information regarding the storage of chocolate is probably correct, but it is a policy here that Wikipedia is not a how to guide. You may wish to put the storage information of chocolate into alternative outlets, such as Wikihow. Thanks, Green caterpillar (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The section right now looks a lot like a how-to guide. An encyclopedic article does not need to contain information like "Ideally, chocolates are packed or wrapped, and placed in proper storage with the correct humidity and temperature". According to the policy, "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestions". I see lots of suggestions and advice in there. Furthermore, there are no sources except for the last part about blooming chocolate. If the section stays, it needs to have that all removed in accordance with the policy (which seems like everything except for the first sentence). Green caterpillar (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

that's not really what it means. A how-to is much more direct than that: "place chocolate in your cupboard, where the temperature should not exceed 25 centrigrade. Keep well wrapped and away from strong smells. If bloom develops, the chocolate is still perfectly edible, but will be unsightly."

A true 'how to' has commands to do something, and if-thens of what to do if such-and-such happens. It's not just a list of properties.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The policy doesn't only refer to specifically being a how-to guide. If you read it, it refers to manuals, guidebooks, textbooks, and internet guides. Readers who want to find what the proper storage of chocolate is do not go to Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not intended to do that. Again, such information goes in alternative outlets. Green caterpillar (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This section isn't a manual, guidebook, textbook or internet guide. It's a description of the properties of chocolate that are important if you want to store it. It doesn't tell you *how* to store it, any more than jet engine tells you how to build a jet engine. This is purely about the theory surrounding chocolate storage, not practice.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"description of the properties of chocolate that are important if you want to store it" - that's a how to guide. Information here should be relevant to general information about chocolate, not information that would be only of interest to those few who want to store it. Just like an article about a game doesn't imply that so-and-so boss is the hardest ever, this shouldn't either. Green caterpillar (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

But, no, not at all. There's a distinction between information that might be useful if you want to do something, and the actual knowledge of how to do something. "In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is."- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

Hi Wolfkeeper,

Early on in my Wikipedia editing I used to respond to people's talk page comments (as you do) by inserting response text in the middle of someone else's comment. Someone pointed out to me that this makes it very hard for other people later on to follow how a conversation went, because the chronology is broken, and you can't piece together what was originally said as a single coherent comment. In this respect, they pointed out, Wikipedia talk pages are very different from usenet or discussion forums, where the flow of conversation is clearly and permanently embedded into the page. Anyway, I thought that was good advice, and I'm passing it on to you.

Hope all is well. :-) --Steve (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've got one guy randomly deleting bits of the wikipedia because he claims that a simple collection of facts constitutes a how-to, and I've got Brews Ohare who is desperately trying to save a page he completely invented to put his content that was deleted by somebody else.

For the record, the talk system on the wikipedia doesn't really work. Every single way of using it is broken in some way. If you think I'm being rude, I can assure you that is not the case. If you always add on the end, that doesn't work either in a different way.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal force (planar motion)

I am not happy that you have recommended this article for deletion. You had mentioned earlier on its talk page that you thought it overlapped Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) but did not reply to my efforts to explain my views.

I am disturbed as well that you would raise this issue while in the midst of debate over Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame), debate that I feel is a digression from the subject of Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame), and is likely to engage the detailed topics on Centrifugal force (planar motion). Deletion of this page will simply mean a more difficult discussion as this material will have to be copied to the Talk pages.

I do believe an expert opinion would be useful, although there may be some controversy over who is an "expert".

Any words of wisdom? Brews ohare (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the people involved (e.g. you, David Tombe) that debate has been running for a couple of years or so and will never stop.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The length of this debate is not at issue; deletion of an article is at issue. You may feel I am just kidding around with this article, but that is not the case. I have made a very careful attempt to explain issues and provide citations. I think you will agree that I have made every attempt to deal with Tombe and Fugal in a civil manner and with reasoned and cited responses. They are not easy to deal with. I am, of course, opinionated on this subject. Brews ohare (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is a content fork. Under the processes of the wikipedia it must be merged with one or more other articles or be deleted.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have explained why I do not think that it is a content fork. What do you dispute in my arguments? Please address the points below:

1 Centrifugal force (planar motion) deals with general planar motion, not simply uniform circular motion. The other article does not.

This does not seem to be a well defined topic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The topic is discussed at legth in the article; it is not necessary here to try to summarize all that. Just read it over, please.Brews ohare (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

2 Centrifugal force (planar motion) deals with a variety of frames, inertial and non-inertial, that are not discussed in the other article.

No.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it deals with the non-inertial frame attached to the moving particle and with the co-rotating frame as two examples. Each of these examples brings out a very important aspect of centrifugal force for planar motion not addressed in the other article. Please read the article. Brews ohare (talk)

3 Centrifugal force (planar motion) discusses a variety of coordinate systems (one of which, the curvilinear coordinate system was added at your own request). The other article does not.

The consensus was to remove it. That means it gets removed, not that you fork the article and put it in there.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of such consensus. Brews ohare (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

4 Centrifugal force (planar motion) deals with the issue of two terminologies (a matter under dispute by (pardon me) some very tendentious editors that are beyond any argument, be it based upon citations, or extended quotation, or upon logic, or upon simple examples). The other article does not.

No, that doesn't work. Articles are about a single term, or multiple synonymous terms. They are not on two distinct terms. That's why reactive centrifugal force was moved out for example.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, can an article on horses discuss red horses and black horses? How about racehorses and plough horses? I don't find this rule quite so black and white. Brews ohare (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, if it's not black and white, then we can ignore it? Hey, how about... we hold an AFD to decide whether on balance it's over the line? FWIW red horse and black horse do not exist. racehorse and plough horse do. That's because they are independently written about, whereas the colored horses are not. The article we are discussing is not an independently discussed topic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

5 Centrifugal force (planar motion) contains Figures not in the other article, illustrating points not in the other article.

Do you dispute these points? If you do agree, is that not evidence that this article is not a fork?

I do disagree, and it is a fork, please stop wasting everybody's time like this.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think these matters should be included under the other article, is not a proposal for merging the articles more appropriate? That would be a backward step, I feel, because I do not believe we are dealing with much overlap of subjects. Brews ohare (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Even the lead for a start is a copy and paste. That this is a content fork could not be more self evident. This article describes the centrifugal force that acts upon objects in planar motion when observed from non-inertial reference frames. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper: you have quoted the lead. It contains the words "planar motion". Those words are not synonymous with uniform circular motion in a plane. They include tortuous paths in 2-space traveled with variable speed. It contains the words "non-inertial reference frames". That subject includes uniformly rotating frames with a fixed axis, but it is not restricted to only such frames.

I am not trying to be difficult here. I am just looking for a real examination of the numbered points I listed above, no shooting from the hip. Brews ohare (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Merely restricting the dimensionality is not talking about a different topic. You're wasting my time.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are annoyed, which doesn't help communication. Sorry about "wasting your time". How about wasting my time by deleting hours of work writing, preparing figures and tracking down citations? Material you wish to delete even though you have not read it carefully, and do not understand it. Add to that a rather high-handed, cold-water bath for me when you posted the deletion banner without any attempt at discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

How you spend your time is not my concern. When you use it to create fake articles on bizarrely specified topics that 'just happens' to match the information deleted from other articles, you should expect some resistance.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You are way out of line here. The article is not fake, the topic is not bizarre. You escalated what should have been a discussion into a war by unprovoked unilateral aggression in a very public arena without consultation. The time has come to calm down, back off, and do things in a civilized manner. Brews ohare (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Move it or lose it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A very conciliatory attitude. What is the matter with you? Brews ohare (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have moved to have this article deleted. I can say I have learned a lot during this debate (besides its endless nature). Please stay away from me. Brews ohare (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

You may be right. Since he wasn't community banned, it was within the discretion of an individual admin to unblock. If you feel that he is disruptive to a degree incompatible with our project, I suggest initiating a community ban discussion on WP:ANI. I won't oppose you, though I'll explain why I unblocked him (it's a bad habit I have, wanting to give people a second chance). Another reason was that there were a couple of supporters on his talk page campaigning for an unblock. As I have said, it wasn't an easy decision, and Acoterion was on the fence as well; when I'm "on the fence" I prefer to err on the side of leniency. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess everyone felt sorry for him. I know I do, just not enough to want to put up with his rubbish. There's multiple entire archives full of his drivel and people arguing with him. There's also stuff like [17] on the web where he says: "My dispute with the mainstream interpretations of both centrifugal force and Coriolis force still remain." in other words, he's deliberately editing from a non NPOV position, and he's been doing it for quite a while.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force

I am looking for help improving the dermatology content on wikipedia. Would you be willing to help, or do you have any friends interested in derm that would be interested in helping? Kilbad (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit check on RB545

Wolf, could you look at this edit for me? An IP changed a word to one that I could in my college-level dicionary. It only got 3 hits in a Google search, not from reliable sites, though the context was similar to its use in this edit. Even if it is a real word, it should not be used without some explanation of what it actually means, especially if it's not in a reputable print dictionary. I've reverted it for the time being. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk)

Yup, well spotted.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

XB-70 and supercruise

Wolf, do you know of any sources that state that the XB-70 Valkyrie had supercruise, and and what speeds this was used? The XB-70 Valkyrie#Supersonic cruise section is very vague about this. It's my understanding that the B-70 was designed to cruise at Mach 3, where pure turbojets don't function very well. In addition, we have a user who insists on addinfg really doesn't seem to be the point of the section at all. To make matters worse, the editor is misrepresenting what II am saying in my edit summaries, to the point that I suspect a troll, or at least trollish behavior. Anyway, verifiable sources would be great to add to the "Supersonic cruise" section, as it is quite un-understandable to a layperson. Thanks for whatever you can do. I'm not asking you to get involved directly in the article - that's up to you. - BillCJ (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the dry fuel consumption seems rather low for it to be able to sustain supercruise, whereas the wet is about right. If the xb-70 could supercruise then it would have the worlds most efficient jet engine; so I kind of doubt it, otherwise somebody would have said this somewhere. I found a reference that Concorde's olympus 593 engines were the most efficient when at Mach 2.05; but arithmetic suggests that the SR-71, xb-70 and Tu-144 are not far behind at all at their respective speeds (this is per mile travelled).- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, I don't think it can supercruise.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Invalid proof

I can't find the original book I found the proof in (which, incidentally, make me mad, as I rather liked the book), but I should think that the proof would still be mathematically valid? - 71.226.224.166 (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure that if you don't reference it, nobody else will, so I feel I pretty much have to take it out now. I'm giving the other unreferenced proofs 3 months, but then they're gone also, which will be a big shame; but in the long run it will probably be for the best; people will have to reference any new ones they add.22:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Invalid proof

Hi, I have a problem with this edit where you edit summary says "rv: unreferenced changes". Along with that removal, you eliminated what seems to be a valid book reference, Fallacies in Mathematics by E.A. Maxwell, along with an inter-language link. Also, on the talkpage you wrote "I'm also not going to allow any new sections to be added unless they're referenced". Although enforcing WP:V is all very good, note that you do not have any authority over that article, or any other article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, the reference was added post hoc, wasn't referencing any particular section, and general references like that are heavily deprecated anyway. Unreferenced materials can be removed at any time, under the wikipedias rules. In a couple of months I fully intend to removal all proofs that I am unable to determine are referenced. That's nearly all of them. This article is simply out of control.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Glamour (charm)

A tag has been placed on Glamour (charm), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. --Ged UK (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Glamour (charm)

I have nominated Glamour (charm), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glamour (charm). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --Ged UK (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Plug/ED nozzles

Hi Wolfkeeper, I've been looking through the links you posted regarding advanced nozzles. I'm thinking that the people at Aerospaceweb.org have put rather confusing facts online. Even the diagrams they have refer specifically to an E-D nozzle and a Spike nozzle. While they call the thing at the centre of an ED nozzle a 'plug', it is more specifically refered to as a Centrebody or Pintle.

You seem to have been keeping the nozzle section coherent for quite a while so I hope we can clear any confusion there seems to be over this subject.

I can give some references if you like. For instance: http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1998/PV1998_3522.pdf. This is from: "Flow phenomena in advanced rocket nozzles - The plug nozzle" Hagemann, G., DLR, Hardthausen, Germany; Immich, H., Daimler-Benz Aerospace, Space Infrastructure, Ottobrunn, Germany; Terhardt, M., Daimler-Benz Aerospace, Space Infrastructure, Ottobrunn, Germany AIAA-1998-3522

It seems you too noticed this issue back in 2005 and mentioned it on the Plug Nozzle discussion site.

Get back to me with what you think please.--RedHotIceCube (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So far as I can tell the nomenclature is confused at best, but I have found a reference that NASA consider them to be the same, which I added to the article. I looked at your pdf, but it was not helpful.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree there does seem to be some inconsiderate use of the term. I've found a couple research papers that should clarify things...

"Recent Developments in Rocket Nozzle Configuration", G. Rao 1961, National Engineering Science Co. Pasadena Ca. states that "Instead of locating the throat of the rocket motor at the outer diameter, as in the case of a plug nozzle, a compact combustion chamber with the throat section annulus located close to the nozzle centreline can be constructed. In this case, the exhaust gases issue forth from the throat in an outward direction... and expand around the shoulder of the central plug. The nozzle wall contour in the form of a shroud would turn the expanding exhaust gases in a nearly axial direction. This type of nozzle is denoted the Expansion-Deflection or E-D type."

A more recent text: "Experimental Measurements of an Expansion Deflection Nozzle in Open Wake Mode", N.Taylor and T. Sato of Bristol University and Waseda University respectively, 2007. "The Expansion Deflection nozzle... as in the case in a Plug or Aerospike nozzle, the supersonic exhaust flow within the nozzle is bounded by fluid at approximately atmospheric pressure (the main difference between an ED and the more commonly investigated Plug is that the boundary is internal, rather than external)..."

This should explain the position taken by researchers in the field.--RedHotIceCube (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you haven't yet responded to the above comments so I'm thinking you agree. I'll update the plug nozzle and advanced nozzle sections to reflect the idea that plug nozzles and E-D nozzles are seperate ideas. If you still disagree let me know.--RedHotIceCube (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. I don't see that there is any kind of general agreement that there is a difference between ED and plug nozzles, and even if there is, you haven't done the work to show that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. There is this definition from Sutton and Biblarz, Rocket Propulsion Elements 7th Ed. "The plug nozzle or aerospike nozzle has an annular doughnut-shaped chamber ...around a common plug or spike. The outside aerodynamic boundary of the gas flow in the divergent section of the nozzle is the interface between the hot gas and the ambient air; there is no outer wall as in a conical or bell-shaped nozzle. As the external or ambient pressure is reduced during the ascending flight, this gas boundary expands outwards, causes a change in pressure distribution on the central spike, and allows an automatic and continuous altitude compensation. The aerospike contour with the minimum losses turns out to be very long, similar in length to an optimum bell nozzle.

In the expansion-deflection nozzle the flow from the chamber is directed radially outward away from the nozzle axis. The flow is turned on a curved contour diverging nozzle wall." http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LQbDOxg3XZcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=rocket+propulsion&ei=wlEhScL4EYywkwSVv5SCDw#PPA84,M1--RedHotIceCube (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And from the Journal of Propulsion and Power Vol.14 No.5, "Advanced Rocket Nozzles" by Hagemann et al.: "In contrast to plug nozzles, however, the expansion process is controlled from the inside for E-D nozzles." Let me know if these sources are insufficient.--RedHotIceCube (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Vaporub section.

Very true on the "kill the unsourced at any time"... but the vapo-cure editor seems VERY committed to keeping the section in the article. I hoped that putting a much shorter statement in with a "citation" flag would draw the editor into some kind of compromise, or even a good source. I confess I am sorry to see it deleted... as I fear the longwinded version will be restored yet again. All the best! :) sinneed (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a problem. If they're anonymous, then eventually the article will be semiprotected. If they're not anonymous, then sooner or later their account will be blocked. Or they can reference it. Either way, the wikipedia doesn't lose, unlike when unreferenced and possibly completely wrong material is included.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have been editing far longer and far more than I... I'll defer to your experience. Thanks. :) sinneed (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Jet engine performance

I just ran into the Jet engine performance article, and needed a GPS to get out! It was created about 2 year ago by an editor who has since ceased using WP (at least on that username). I've just spent the last 2 hours trying to clean up some GE turbofan articles, as he was unable to cite his sources. the performance article seems typical of his work, having no sources whatsoever. Even after two years, no one else has added any sources either. It also seems far too technical and involved for an encyclopedia. Do you think this is salvageable (near-term, not two more years from now), or should we ADF it an put it out of its misery? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be better placed in wikiversity, although I actually quite like it, the guy obviously knows his stuff. Shame there's no references though.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:LaunchLoop.GIF listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:LaunchLoop.GIF, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGa^talk 03:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Glamour (presentation)

I have looked over your issue on the disambiguation page with User:ChildofMidnight and I agree that your assessment of the redirect name is correct. That said, do not removed someone's tag for a third opinion. You don't own the article, and someone else has the right to hear an unbiased opinion, not your own opinion twice. Trusilver 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I simply removed it because User:HelloAnnyong had already done her 3rd opinion thing and had removed it from the list on the 3rd opinion page. I wouldn't have responded to the 3rd opinion comment on the talk page, but I didn't realise it was an official process until after Annyong popped up and I'd already commented. I'd never seen this policy in operation, so I read the checklist, and noticed that there was a step on the checklist that she was supposed to have followed to remove it, but it didn't look like she'd noticed it was on the article page, it was just a simple clerical thing, so I marked it minor. I just don't OWN articles, never have, never gonna.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Notice of impending FAC

I'm planning to nominate Gerard K. O'Neill at WP:FAC in the next couple of days. Because you were a significant contributor to the article, I thought I would let you know in case you had any last minute comments or concerns. Wronkiew (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Glamour

I've addressed the multiple issues on the talk page. And I don't think the multiple issues have anything to do with it being a stub, to be honest... Richard Hock (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Proposed tall buildings and structures

I have nominated Proposed tall buildings and structures, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposed tall buildings and structures. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Stifle (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Molluscum contagiosum

Hi, just wanted to let you know that User:toyokuni3 has asked for my input on my talk page about the Molluscum contagiosum article. I'll respond on my talk page so that way you can both see what I have to say there. Let me know if I can be of any help. Peace, delldot ∇. 21:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, replied on my talk. delldot ∇. 22:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't heard back from you so I'm going to remove the uncited material and take it to the article's talk page. I have zero interest in edit warring or anything of that nature and I'm happy to discuss. Since we're in agreement about the necessity of citations and everything, it shouldn't be any problem. But please don't reinsert the uncited material without a reference. Thanks much for the hard work you've put into the article and for being agreeable about the whole thing! Peace, delldot ∇. 17:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Handjob types

This has nothing to do with censoring Wikipedia, note that most of these claims weren't sourced, and one even had a reference to Everything2, a freely editable site. I have removed it again and left the only two that had a citation to a reliable source. --dicttrshp (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Glider & sailplane

You have left the glider article in a half-finished state and duplicated much of it in the sailplane article. Much of the glider article still refers mainly to sailplanes and even says as much in the terminology section. Very little new, if anything, has been added and the result is less logical than before you started. Have you changed your mind part way through or are you coming back for further editing sessions? Are you going to complete what you started or should I revert your changes? I would also be interested to know about your experience of gliding. JMcC (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't just reduce the quality of an article and hope that someone else will sort it out at some future time. When are you going to finish what you started? I would have been ashamed to leave an article in this state. If it does not improve, I will revert it. JMcC (talk)

Nice attitude. Attitude determines altitude, I'm steering upwards.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just let me know when you think the glider article reaches your personal standard of quality. I am staying clear for the moment. JMcC (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message at WP:AVIATION about the seriesbox. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be safer to discuss what you are planning to do in advance rather than acting unilaterally. There is always a risk of unproductive work, if there is a later general disapproval. Wikiprojects exist to co-ordinate work on areas of common interest. This is not abuse, just friendly advice. JMcC (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact I'm finding anything involving any of the Aircraft talk pages is a net drain on productivity, and reading what mostly amounts to being unproductive whingeing about what is and isn't the most widespread use of ill-conceived and inaccurate terminology is really depressing. Usually by the time we've discussed it once there, I could have done and if necessary undone it several times over.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Internal Combustion

There's probably a bit more to do at this article, the last paragraph is still clumsy and probably needs fixing. TomRawlinson (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. You've broken all the policies, and you've made the common error of trying to rewrite the definition in terms of 'common usage', it just doesn't work. I mean why is a rocket engine an internal combustion engine? Why is a jet engine?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you're wrong. The expansion of gases produces a force in piston based ICEs, but in gas-turbines, expansion accelerates the gases, and it's their speed that is translated into torque and rotational energy. Hence, "In an ICE it is always the high temperature and pressure gases themselves which apply force to the movable component of the engine" is always true, whereas speaking of their expansion applying pressure is not. TomRawlinson (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, in gas turbines and jet engines, the combustion is done at constant pressure with the inlet air, and then the hot gases do work by expanding against the gas turbine and/or the inside of the propelling nozzle, cooling the gas and giving up the internal energy and performing mechanical work.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The air comes out of the turbine/nozzle section much cooler than it went in.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll let you have that one! TomRawlinson (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Response on launch loop

I responded to you here: [[18]]. Cornince (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Encyclopedia article

An article that you have been involved in editing, Encyclopedia article, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia article. Thank you. Graymornings_(talk) 07:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

unreference claim about subsonic speeds????

jet propulsion article: Are you blind? There were a lot of references (books), download in more format. Be mindful!

Type in the pdf searcher: "Fono" you will get a lot of results. http://iaaweb.org/iaa/Studies/history.pdf

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebration1981 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand wolfkeeper seems to think that the universe is going at a rapid speed but it is all relative to the object we are basing our speed and acceleration on; in which case the earth. If one is flying around using reactionless propulsion one would be inclined to think it would take a lot of energy to accelerate due to the already fast speed of the universe. Although, one has forgotten that planes can accelerate even though they are off the ground in a universe at exponential speeds. It is all relative to where one is and where one wants to go. There would be no acceleration or speed if there is nothing to base it on.Ellbug89 (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right, come see me some time on your hoverboard.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha,Ha, maybe I will sometime Ellbug89 (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Nah.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Eva Peron article

Thank you for your intervention. I was wondering if maybe you could intervene in what seems to be something of a conflict with User:Pigsonthewing. I finally bowed and included in the intro paragraphs a reference to the musical. He rewrote it and said that I used uncited "weasil words." He then included a reference which he himself didn't cite either. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that "Outside of Argentina she is perhaps most famously known as the subect of the musiscal Evita." I request your intervention on this because I fear that this is going to continue. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll find a source. I will also note that his contribution that "She is known for the musical Evita" was also uncited. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your earlier intervention. Is there any way you could intervene again? Pigsonthewing and I are having some difficulty. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Scope of articles

Hi Wolfkeeper. I was wondering whether you would have any objection to me contacting a number of people who have been involved in editing articles that you have rescoped to find out whether the rescope was indeed the product of a consensus decision? I wanted to clear this with you first in order to avoid any possible accusation of WP:Canvassing by you at some later point. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how that would be in any way appropriate.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to challenge consensus in any article, you should do it in the normal ways.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Italicizing of g (acceleration)

Wolfkeeper. There is a discussion going on here at Talk:G-force#Italicizing regarding your italicizing the unit symbol g in the discipline of acceleration. Your assertion that the unit symbol must be italicized needs to be cited. It does not appear to me to be correct. Greg L (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please don't edit war. When a user writes "see talk" in their edit summary, it's likley that they are in the process of posting something to explain their edit. To revert them without comment is rude - it's engaging in Edit Warring and is generally unhelpful. Please discuss things on talk and seek consensus. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if that appeared to be the case, but your edit was poorly supported by citation rules and in addition was flawed in terms of technical accuracy as well. I have added a comment on the talk page as well.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Reversal of changes to glider article

I see that you made major changes to the Glider article while discussions about its scope were still in progress. No consensus had been reached and many valid arguments against your point of view were unanswered. Your changes have been reversed. Please answer my points and we still may be able to agree.JMcC (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that you have the right under the wikipedia's policies to create a non neutral article by doing such a revert. You cannot bypass NPOV policy by use of categories or merging of any other articles, as the non neutrality is the scope of the glider article itself; it is an unbiased POV that referring to (for example) hang gliders as gliders is commonly done, and this is a neutral point of view and one that is supported by (for example) the FAI definition of glider as well as the FAA one.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of putting a merge proposal on an article and then doing it anyway within a few hours? I am willing to discuss and to try to understand your arguments, but you have merely decided to impose your own personal beliefs by claiming that you are following a policy. Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise. I had hoped we could resolve this but I will have to seek advice elsewhere about your behaviour. JMcC (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You've been reverting my edits for almost a month now. You weren't right to do that the first time; your idea of 'collaboration' seems to involve only doing things your way. Collaboration is a two-way street, and I see no evidence of your collaboration. Just because you are or claim to be a glider instructor doesn't give you the right to attempt to define the word 'glider' in the wikipedia. People like the FAA/FAI do have that right; and they define it differently to you. These definitions are in the article, and they do not align with it being solely a sailplane. This nonsense has gone on long enough.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

a Chinese translation

Hello，I met a problem when I translate the sentence"The sound intensity from these shock waves depends on the size of the rocket, and on large rockets could potentially kill at close range."into Chinese, what does the word"kill" means in the sentence?It refer to the noise disappear?Many thanks...--Woc2006 (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It means that if you were very close to the base of a very large rocket when it took off you would probably die, just from the sound. The sound intensity is high enough (about 200 dBA) that it can cause lung rupture.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Corned beef sandwich

Hi, thanks for your input on Talk:Corned beef sandwich. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

NP! Glad I could help. (If I did).- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 08:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup. And then it turned out that the incident had already been written up at Gemini 3, so it was a simple operation to clear up the sandwich article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

scramjet

I finally wrote up the efficiency and range stuff which I promised ages ago (almost 2 years, when I look back), so feel free to have a look. Regards, AKAF (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well... it's unreferenced. My understanding is that scramjets seem to be a bit of a dead end for launch purposes, the engine is too heavy to give enough acceleration to reach orbital speeds quickly, and this helps mean that any payload increases are very modest. The Reaction Engines Skylon idea of reaching Mach 5.5 before lighting rocket engines seems to have a mass budget that closes with double the payload or better than current pure rocket launchers, but seems to do that with full reentry shielding and SSTO. If it works, and it looks extremely promising, then it's a real game changer.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Scramjets seem to be mostly being examined for weapons, but the weaponry people seem to suggest it's better for launching, but the launching people say it's better for weapons. Either way, they enjoy the research budget, and say that more research is required. ;-)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that quite a few aerospace people believe that the NASP was largely a cold-war feint by the Reagan administration to put pressure on the Soviet Union. The fact that the UK response to that program HOTOL seems to have led to a technology being developed that might actually work, just makes it funnier. ;-)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The section tries to provide a basis to explain why "too heavy for launch purposes" isn't worth the paper its written on. I certainly have at least one example of a scramjet engine from the literature which was measured to produce 10g acceleration on a fully cowled engine at Mach 6 (not a full vehicle, but all the same). Both the groups who say scramjets are usable and those who say they are not are relying on figures with a huge uncertainty. For instance, early estimates assumed either that a full ablative surface would be required over the entire craft, or that materials would advance so that nothing would be needed, for the purposes of calculating the required Isp. The truth, of course lies somewhere between the two.

The weapons option is obvious: it's easier to produce an engine for which thrust just balances drag. The next stage of advancement (engine wise) is then to build an engine which produces more thrust than drag. The missiles people don't much care for scramjets because it's hard to fit a seeker head to something with an air intake on the front. Additionally, missile development is a low-budget affair generally (in the realm of aircraft research), because, much like with UCAVs, its difficult to justify spending 100 million on a research program when it will produce maybe 1000 missiles at 100,000 a pop. Launch vehicles are in another price bracket.

I am disinclined to believe that NASP was a feint, but the public perception of the program was very different to the actual research that went on. The most part was very basic science: combustion and aerodynamic modeling, control laws for hypersonics and high temperature materials development, which isn't very sexy, but quite useful. Reaction Engines' concepts have been around for about 20 years now, but to be honest, aren't much more advanced than the scramjet studies. I also think the idea has potential, but the company seems to spend a lot of time developing "concept vehicles" without having ever tested a complete engine. Call me cynical :-) AKAF (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, scramjet researchers are saying 20 years, and even then for a TSTO vehicle, which more or less means they think they don't know how to do it. Reaction Engines are saying more like 10-15 years, which means they think they do, and for single stage. Their concept is much closer to existing designs and the key technology -the heat exchanger- has now been tested in a lab environment under representative conditions, and worked as advertised, and at the target mass budget. The precooled jet engine idea also works from Mach 0 all the way up to Mach 5.5, where rockets become efficient, but scramjets don't work well below about Mach 7(ish) and you need to add another engine to get up to Mach 2 even if you can run in ramjet mode. Scramjets have been conceptually around for maybe 70 years, and are making self-evidently slow progress, although they do actually fly. Reaction Engines actually have funding right now for a program that they expect would lead directly to antipodal airliners and SSTO vehicles- they have first-cut high level designs that close. They also have plausible business markets for both. Basically, as somebody in Britain, I like scramjets a lot, because it means there's little chance of Americans competing in this area, it steals all the funding ;-)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Recognition for your good sense

Ernest Borgnine commends the common sense you demonstrated in this edit. Good show! Unschool 22:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe you didn't actually quote WP:UE. That was a knee-jerk response from me. But that's the thing about common sense. Policy should reflect common sense, not the other way around. So either way, you merit this award! Unschool 22:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Two articles needed

When describing the flight of soaring birds, an article is needed purely about the meteorological phenomenon that they use. This was lift (soaring) but this useful link to this specific subject has now been lost. Instead there is a link to an article that includes winch launching. In my opninion combining several subjects in one article is not how Wikipedia should be organised. When describing the flight of the Space Shuttle, stricken airliners and flying squirrels, another article is needed to describe their mode of flight. A mode of flight and a meteorological phenomemon are two different subjects. It is difficult to see how they could be categorised if they were in the same article. I hope you will see the logic of this. We seemed to have different instincts. I prefer separate articles on separate subjects, whereas your thoughts are directed to combining data on different subjcets into larger articles. JMcC (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that's just wrong. The article is about the extremely notable interaction between a few meteorological phenomena and all and any gliding flight articles. Quite frankly, it's a big concern to me that you profess to not understand this; either you have a complete mental block that prevents you from understanding simple things like this, or your reasons are not as you state.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And in fact you seem to have mentioned this in the sport gliding article, so if you really believed what you state above, then you would be removing it from there as well- but you aren't. So I feel I can quite reasonably question whether you are honestly creating fake issues here.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Since you have edited the links yourself, it should be undeniable that there is a need for links to articles about gliding flight and rising air that are totally generalised without any bias to human activity. Furthermore these are separate topics. At present the links about gliding flight and rising air bring the user to the same article about human flight, because of its references to launching. All these topics in one article can only mean that the article is about a human activity, ie sports which are already covered elsewhere. This is a risk that you will create a parallel article to meet your own unique views, instead of two articles to meet a need that could not be clearer. Just to help with any mental block that I may have, would you state which of the above sentences that you disagree with and why. JMcC (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The scope of the gliding (flight) article as you well know includes all gliding flight, including all human gliding flight as well as animals and even inanimate objects, and animals very, very definitely do make use of all these forms of meteorological phenomena while engaging in thrust-free flight. The gliding article is only about human sports gliding as it states quite clearly at the top, and can be quite properly considered a subarticle of gliding (flight). Since 'gliding' is a term that can be applied differently, either extremely widely or narrowly, and certainly not simply by me, then I fail to see how these constitute my 'unique views' as you put it. I also wish to point out that WP:AGF does not require me to assume good faith if you continue to act self evidently in bad faith, such as asking questions and making accusations that are not sustained by the facts.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User subpage

Hi Wolfkeeper. I see that on 6 and 7 February you made 52 consecutive edits to Gliding (flight). 20 of those edits were made in a period of only 54 minutes. You appear to be using the Wikipedia article as a sandbox for progressively working up a comprehensive amendment. This has the benefit of maximising your edit count but it makes life a little harder than necessary for other users who want to scan the history of an article — all we can see on one history page is Wolfkeeper's edits. Are you aware there is a better way?

Better alternatives are:

• create a User subpage for yourself, possibly called User:Wolfkeeper/sandbox. You can then copy and paste an article to your user subpage, work on it over a period of time, and then paste it back into the main article. Information on creating a user subpage is available at WP:USER#How do I create a user subpage?
• use Microsoft Word. You can copy and paste an article into a word-processor document, work on it over time, occasionally check it out using the sandbox, and then paste it back into the main article.

Happy editing! Dolphin51 (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not worried about increasing my totnum, but for a new article a burst of activity to knock the article into shape is fairly normal behaviour I think. I point blank refuse to use Microsoft Word for editing the wikipedia though ;) - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt acknowledgement. I agree that a burst of activity is usually necessary for a new article, or even a major amendment. I don't agree that it is usual, or necessary, or desirable to use the article as the sandbox for this process. Have a look at:

• User:Nimbus227/Sandbox/AW.681
• User:Crowsnest/Work2.

Cheers. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, WP:IAR is still core policy, and I'm actually going to invoke it in this case with a clear conscience. At the time I judged that using a sandbox in this case was undesirable, and frankly nothing has changed my mind since; but I don't plan on making a habit of it either. You may find the wikipedias diff tools are helpful in cases like this, and I do apologise for any inconvenience caused.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hohmann procedures

Why did you delete the section? --85.96.255.33 (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Previews and edit summaries

Hi. A tiny note intended as helpful feedback: I noticed that you tend to make multiple talkpage replies, or article edits, in succession (something that I used to do). I just wanted to suggest that you turn on the Special:Preferences -> "Editing" option for "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". This, combined with using the "preview" button more often, helped me to make fewer small edits in a row. Some editors get irritated by this habit (as seen in the #User subpage thread above) because when the changes are all minor it only "clutters" up the edit-history of an article - and in talkpages (like at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Examples of Wikipedia articles on words) when you make 3 or 4 separately signed replies in a rapid row, it can give the impression to readers that you haven't considered your words for very long before hitting "save". "Haste makes waste", and all that...

(I also use/recommend the preferences "Show preview before edit box" and "Show preview on first edit". I don't recall if they are on by default or not)

I hope you don't take offense at the constructive criticism, and maybe even find it useful :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Glider

Hi Wolfkeeper, I have a new suggestion up at Talk:Glider#Arbitrary_beak. All suggestions and comments are very welcome. Regards, AKAF (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wolfkeeper, I hope you're not too unhappy with the compromises at glider. I'm not too sure what to think yet, so I'm stopping watching the pot for a bit to see whether it boils. AKAF (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not at all unhappy, I would have preferred glider pointing to glider aircraft but it's OK like this I think. We missed a trick though we should have moved unpowered aircraft to glider (sailplane) rather than glider and then copied the text around to give the same thing we have at the moment. The history right now is in the wrong place, that would have sorted it out; but never mind.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Flight

Hi Wolfkeeper! On 19 February you edited Flight#Thrust to weight ratio and added a citation.

• The citation is simply to Sutton, 7th edition, pg 442. Could you expand your citation to include title, publisher etc?
• You wrote where weight means weight at the earth's standard acceleration $g_{0}$. This statement does not appear to be accurate paraphrasing of the quotation from Sutton. If your statement is true, a rocket-powered module could launch from the surface of the moon (or any other planet or satellite) with a thrust-to-weight ratio much less than one. I suggest weight is always mass times local acceleration due to gravity. Weight is only equal to mass times earth's standard acceleration at places where the local acceleration is equal to earth's standard acceleration.
  Happy editing! Dolphin51 (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, my understanding is that weight is always normalised to 1g for weight and measures purposes, and the Apollo lunar lander had a thrust/weight ratio below 1, but was still able to takeoff on the moon; and this is consistent with Sutton.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt fix to the citation of Sutton's book.

For the purposes of weights and measures it makes sense for weight to be determined at, or near, sea level (otherwise customers might challenge their grocers by claiming their purchased goods don't have correct weight at some significant altitude above the earth's surface.) However, the concept of thrust-to-weight ratio (T/W) is applied to rockets and jet engines for engineering and scientific purposes, and commercial considerations of weights and measures are not relevant.

If you have seen a statement that the lunar lander had a T/W less than one, it only makes sense if the intended meaning was something like on earth, the lunar lander has a T/W less than one, but on the moon, where gravitational acceleration is only one sixth that on earth, its T/W ratio is greater than one so takeoff from the moon's surface is possible.

It is widely known that ladders on the lunar landers are not strong enough to hold the weight of an astronaut on earth, but once on the moon the weight of an astronaut is only one sixth that on earth and the ladders are strong enough.

I will make some refinements to Flight and Thrust-to-weight ratio. Regards. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what you're saying makes apparently good sense... but it's still wrong. In rocketry in particular it actually is a real problem, and that's why that book is a good source. If you think about it, the ISS for example is weightless, and trying to define it in terms of actual weight wouldn't work. The definition in Sutton is very particular, and doesn't define it in the way you indicate. Unless you have a contrary reference then it will have to stay as it is I'm afraid.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed in your behaviour. You reverted all of that with so little explanation.

The ISS is a very, very special case. Thrust-to-weight ratio has very broad application. It is not a parameter defined only for orbital vehicles. In fact, the ISS is not weightless. Its weight matches its centripetal force so there is no ground reaction force and that creates the impression of "weightlessness". For orbital vehicles, thrust-to-mass ratio is highly relevant, but of course that is not a dimensionless parameter.

I don't engage in edit wars with other editors. I will obtain the necessary citations and return later. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the situation is that gravity doesn't vary much for aircraft (about 1%), so they don't care so much; but in practice they weigh the vehicles at sea level anyway, for obvious reasons (it's impossible to accurately weigh an aircraft in mid air). For rockets it matters quite a bit, and it's defined to be as weighed at sea level. The reference to the Apollo Lunar Lander is done that way (NASA defined it as 0.34), as does Sutton.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

But if you can find good references we can put both in, but as I say, Sutton is a good reference for most things, he's pretty careful.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The other thing is that there's a historical aspect to this; in America, both mass and force were measured in pounds, so they just 'cancel'. Of course a mass lb and a force lb are different, but they simply pretended they were the same. That's probably how the Apollo Lunar Lander was calculated. But that means to get the same result in SI units you have to use g0 in the calculation. The right thing to do if you want to 'do this right' is to quote it as N/kg, but I don't recall seeing that anywhere much.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In your quotation from Sutton, you use the expression F/Wg. Please clarify whether this is:

1. ${\frac {F}{weight}}$

2. ${\frac {F}{W*g}}$

3. ${\frac {F}{W}}*g$

1. is dimensionless, but 2. and 3. are not.
2. has no significanced. W/g is mass, but W*g is nothing.
3. is the thrust-to-mass ratio, and has units of acceleration, as indeed does any force-to-mass ratio. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I do apologise, the text actually reads W₀ not W_g, so none of the above, and it makes slightly more sense now, and is less ambiguous.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. How does Sutton define W₀? Dolphin51 (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't but it's pretty clear that it means the weight at g0 IMO from the surrounding text. Actually on further examination the book defines it twice, once, as F/W0 on page 30 and F/W_G on page 442; but both times it specifies earths surface acceleration due to gravity. I'm also lead to believe that G is often used by NASA to be a shorthand for g0; for example they often write a 1xg0 g-force as 1G, whereas 1g could denote local gravity.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

At present, Flight#Thrust to weight ratio contains the sentence If the thrust-to-weight ratio is greater than the local gravity strength (expressed in gs), then flight can occur without any forward motion or any aerodynamic lift being required.

On the face of it this doesn't make sense. For example, if T/W of a lunar lander, based on W at earth's surface, is 0.8, the vehicle is clearly capable of self-launching from the lunar surface. However, local gravity strength on the moon, and everywhere else, is 1.0. Now 0.8 is less than 1.0 so Wikipedia suggests the lunar lander is not capable of self-launching.

However, it would make sense if it said If T/W, based on weight W at the earth's surface, is greater than the local gravity strength (expressed as a multiple of g₀, gravitational acceleration at the earth's surface), then flight can occur without forward motion or aerodynamic lift. Would this be compatible with Sutton's explanation? Dolphin51 (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of the reliance on weight at the earth's surface in the field of specific impulse and other topics dedicated to rocketry. This reliance does not exist for aircraft so the new text should have two separate sub-sections, one dedicated to aircraft and other low-technology things; and the other dedicated to rocketry.

Sutton is a good reference for the work on rocketry. A good reference for aircraft is Introduction to Aircraft Design by John P. Fielding, section 3.1, Cambridge University Press. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Nationmaster encyclopedia just mirrors Wikipedia! Dolphin51 (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. :-)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, you seem to have it in your head that the world ought to be in a particular way, but really, the way you think it should be isn't the way it actually is, and probably isn't the way it should be either.

Thrust/weight is primarily used to compare hardware like engines or entire aircraft. For that purpose it mustn't depend on the g where the equipment is being operated, and that's why it's (somewhat counterintuitively) always referred back to Earth sea level. Specific impulse is also done like that, and specific impulse is also used the same way for aircraft as well, although they more commonly use specific fuel consumption (TSFC), but that's the same thing really, one's simply the inverse of the other multiplied by a constant.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth it's done exactly the same for rockets and aircraft, it just gives stranger results in rockets.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I acknowledge receipt of your message.

On 20 February I asked (above): "However, it would make sense if it said If T/W, based on weight W at the earth's surface, is greater than the local gravity strength (expressed as a multiple of g₀, gravitational acceleration at the earth's surface), then flight can occur without forward motion or aerodynamic lift. Would this be compatible with Sutton's explanation?" Any thoughts on that one? Dolphin51 (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It just says that if the gravity is 0.35g then you need a T/W ratio of at least 0.35 to takeoff.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

On p.442, Sutton refers to the acceleration of the rocket propulsion system (expressed in multiples of g₀). His application of the expression (expressed in multiples of g₀) closely matches my suggested expression (expressed as a multiple of g₀, gravitational acceleration at the earth's surface).

I have no problem with what is in Rocket Propulsion Elements. Dolphin51 (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have finalised some proposed amendments to Thrust-to-weight ratio. My objective has been to expand the article, improve the level of scientific rigour, and make greater use of in-line citations. You can see my proposed version at my sandbox, User:Dolphin51/Sandbox. I am interested in your comments. Dolphin51 (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not knocking my socks off in any way. Problems include:

• it seems to imply thrust/weight is defined differently between aircraft and rockets (but I've no reason to think that is true)
• it implies that the thrust/weight ratio varies over a flight, whereas quoted thrust/weight ratios are usually simply the peak value
• thrust-to-weight is not really a measure of manoueverability

- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at my draft, and for your prompt response. My comments are:

• it seems to imply thrust/weight is defined differently between aircraft and rockets. Thrust-to-weight ratio is self-defining. (It is like lift-to-drag ratio.) We don't actually need a definition in order to attach meaning to it. There is a difference in the way T/W ratio is explained in the cited sources. Sutton chooses to define T/W ratio in a particular way that serves his purposes. It is a meaningful approach for rockets because rockets are capable of operating in gravitational environments very different to that on the earth's surface. The book by Fielding, and others related to aircraft, place no emphasis whatsoever on the notion that weight must be determined on earth. Such an emphasis would serve no purpose in a book on aircraft. You appear to be under the impression that Sutton's definition of T/W ratio is the universal definition, and any other definition is incorrect. Sutton has written The loaded weight W_g is the sea-level initial gross weight of propellant and rocket propulsion system hardware. Clearly this definition is talking about rockets and rocket propulsion systems, and that is most appropriate in a book dedicated to rocket propulsion. Sutton's definition is not aimed at vehicles in general, and not at jet aircraft.

• it implies that the thrust/weight ratio varies over a flight, whereas quoted thrust/weight ratios are usually simply the peak value. That is deliberate. Clearly, as fuel or propellant are consumed, and as thrust varies during a flight, the ratio of instantaneous thrust-to-weight will vary, possibly all the way down to zero. For the purpose of quoting a single value of T/W ratio it makes sense to quote the initial or maximum value. (It is no different to lift-to-drag ratio for a glider. Glider manufacturers quote the best L/D ratio for the purpose of comparing different glider types, but there is also the instantaneous L/D ratio applying to any glider at any time in flight. The instantaneous value is still an L/D ratio, even though it is not the best value quoted in the brochures.)

• thrust-to-weight is not really a measure of manoueverability. Fielding, section 4.1.1, says T/W ratio is a good indicator of the manoeuvrability of a combat aircraft.

When determining the L/D ratio of a glider, drag is measured in air, but it would be unnecessary and inappropriate to define L/D ratio saying it is the ratio of lift to drag measured in air. In the same way, when determining the T/W ratio of a jet aircraft it is unnecessary and inappropriate to define T/W ratio saying it is the ratio of thrust to weight measured on earth.

At present, Thrust-to-weight ratio has an emphasis on weight being measured at the earth's surface. That emphasis is clumsy and conspicuously out of place in a general definition. The article must be a general article, not one dedicated to rockets. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

knol

who the H-F is removing knol's entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by النول (talk • contribs) 11:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)