User talk:Emoscopes/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives
everything up to October 2006

Contents 1 Seacat 2 Other diagrams 3 Nice 4 Deltic animation 5 Infobox data removal 6 Steam 7 war Emergency Programme 8 Stephenson valve gear animation 9 Re: Recategorising ship classes 10 Questions about changes on classes 11 Have a barnstar! 12 British shipbuilders evolution 13 Vickers 14 Pumpjack See also section 15 Welcome to the Military history WikiProject! 16 Anim gif question 17 Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006 18 Caledonian Sleeper map 19 Bangor class 20 Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea title dispute 21 gun naming 22 British Shipbuilders evolution 23 WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

Seacat

Hi, I was looking at your Seacat missile diagram Image:Sea Cat missile.png and the rear fins should be set at 45 degrees (so they are out of phase) to the front fins. I'm not the worlds biggest Seacat expert - but every picture I can find of the missile has this configuration: http://www.fuerzasnavales.com/mag18_1.htm http://www.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/seacat/seacat.shtml http://www.gunplot.net/armoury/seacat.html Nice diagrams btw. Cheers, Megapixie 06:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorted now Emoscopes ^Talk 16:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff :) Megapixie 04:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Other diagrams

It would be good to have two contrasting diagrams contrasting pool and loop type LMFBRs, similar to http://www.insc.anl.gov/dbfiles/plant_category/FBR/bn350loop.gif and http://www.insc.anl.gov/dbfiles/plant_category/FBR/bn600pool.gif at http://www.insc.anl.gov/cgi-bin/sql_interface?view=rx_model&qvar=id&qval=12 describing the Russian reactors.

Possibly, the PFR and DFR diagrams already in progress will do. Just a thought. Andrewa 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:LMFBR schematics.png looks great. A couple of suggestions:

1. At the risk of making the diagrams more elaborate, I think it would be good to show the neutron and biological shields. The positions of these highlight both the differences and the similarities between the two designs.

2. The sodium level in the pool type should be higher inside the flow baffle than outside it; This is the normal situation even when the reactor is shut down. The primary circulation never stops. Again, at the risk of making the diagram more complex I think this would help.

Hope this helps. The diagrams are excellent as I have come to expect. Andrewa 00:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice

Good work on the diagram on impulse and reaction stages. Ten Dead Chickens 01:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Another user here, thanks for the excellent diagram. Could it be included on the gas turbine page? 01:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.252.205.128 (talk)

Thankyou :) By all means add it, it's not an area I'm actively contributing in at the moment. Or, if you don't think it's something you want to contribute on, perhaps suggest it on the page Talk:Gas turbine? Emoscopes ^Talk

Deltic animation

Rather fine! Just had to comment on it GraemeLeggett 14:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Deltic Animation Very clear: I like it, but I'm afraid there is a mistake! (You did ask for comments!)

Compare your diagram with the technical data on [1] (linked from the Wikipedia page on Deltics). It is apparent that each crankshaft should be driven by one inlet (scavenge) piston and one exhaust piston. Noting that the crankshaft rotations are reversed (so this diagram is looking in the opposite direction to yours) it is apparent that you have the left hand ("C") cylinder back-to-front. Your layout would work, but would fire very unevenly because the exhaust lead would have to be 60 degrees (adapting the maths on the next page of the extract above). As a result the V angle between the A and B cylinders would exactly cancel the exhaust lead and these two cylinders would fire simultaneously. In the conventional Deltic configuration, the exhaust lead is 20 degrees (as calculated in the extract above), and the difference between the 60 degree V angle and the 20 degree exhaust lead means the A and C cylinders fire 40 degrees before and after the B cylinder.

Incidentally, this 40 degree interval is why deltic engines are always arranged in multiples of nine cylinders. By arranging two more banks with their B cylinders firing at 120 degrees crankshaft rotation before and after the first one, you get the nine cylinders firing evenly at every 360/9 = 40 degrees of crankshaft rotation.

Hope this helps --NapierDeltic 10:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox data removal

Although I see the motivation behind removing the data in HMS Zulu (F124) etc, it doesn't serve the reader so well, because it's not at all obvious that basic info like length is actually in a different article. It would be helpful to leave a little note where the characteristics would be, saying "for general characteristics see Tribal class frigate". Stan 12:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with that, the stripping out gains little at the moment since the majority of infoboxes are hard-coded and do not incur the same processing power as the use of templates. GraemeLeggett 13:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Good call on a note directing the reader to the ship class page. I shall see to it, I intend to do a lot of work on these pages over the next few weeks, hope you bear with me while I get the ship in order (no pun intended) Emoscopes ^Talk 11:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Steam

I have a book from the 1890's called "the pratical guide to the steam engeneer". among other things, it contans diagrams of a rotery steam engene, three cylinder radial, and one with cams. I plan to add Info as soon as I figure out how to edit well [(User:Hacky|Hacky)]

war Emergency Programme

There doesn't appear to be an overall article on the War Emergency Programme which gets mentioned a lot in the destroyers, are you in position to do a stub?GraemeLeggett 08:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into it, I'm not sure what other vessels were covered by it apart from destroyers, probably the frigates and corvettes. Emoscopes ^Talk 09:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the mighty Hood, it's mentioned in the intro paragraph. GraemeLeggett 10:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems there may have been more than one programme using the words "war" and "emergency" - one for during the First and one for the Second. GraemeLeggett 10:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you were meaning the WW2 programme. I'm afraid my information on the WWI programme is sketchy at best. Basically, it's anything that was built for the war, rather than in spite of it, outside of the usual naval estimates. Emoscopes ^Talk 10:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. So articles on emergency war programme(s) need to refer to Naval Estimates - is an article on Naval Estimates worthwhile, some articles refer to them but not by redlinks. GraemeLeggett 13:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In the long term, yes. However, at the moment my main concern is the complete lack, or sparsity of, information concering ship classes. I'd like to make sure there's no redlinks for any "modern" ship classes, certainly not for anything major since World War 2. I'd also like there to make sure that what information is out there is presented in a straightforward, accurate and common style. It's a huge task, but something I feel I would best serve wikipedia doing. So, back to the point, right now it is my feeling that an article on naval estimates is just adding to the work to be done, but it's definitely something to put on a "to do" list. (Really should set up a project, but haven't the knowledge of how to do so at the moment) Emoscopes ^Talk 13:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm more dabbling myself - I had a bit a scrabble around today to make sure that British shipbuilder names point to somewhere appropiate which meant creating articles for Fairfields and Govan Shipbuilders and a number of redirects. Sorting out links and redlinks being possible to help articles along wiithout actually having to know much.GraemeLeggett 15:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes! Shipbuilders' names! Thats my other little thing I must "see to". There is actually a farily limited 'core' of naval shipbuilders, usually published in the front of old copies of "Jane's". If there were at least stubs for these yeards this would be an improvement. It gets confusing as people often refer to common names or yard locations. i.e. "Barrow" instead of Vickers Armstrong, Barrow in Furness. Emoscopes ^Talk 15:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Stephenson valve gear animation

It’s beautifully done, but I'm not sure that it’s right: the eccentrics aren't mounted in the crank (web) of the axle, are they? If they were, they wouldn't need to be eccentric. One reason for not using the web of the axle is to “tune” the engine (at the design stage) by adjusting the valve opening and closing positions (“lap and lead”) relative to the position of the piston. I’ve oiled a few of them in my time, but I’m blowed if I can remember - probably too busy trying to avoid getting water down my neck and oil up my sleeve. I could very well be wrong on this, and if so please accept my apologies. Do you know where I could check? Moonraker88 17:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It is likely that you are right. I'm only an enthusiastic amatuer, and based the animation on drawings I could find, so basically "worked out" how it had to move. So your guess is as good as mine, and you sound like you know more about this than I do. If you could work out if there is actually an error, could you let me know and I will correct it ASAP. Emoscopes ^Talk 19:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll do a bit more research and get back to you. The animation is too good to lose! Moonraker88 11:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Here’s a 3D drawing showing that the crank web is only the width of the big-end bearing, with the eccentrics mounted on the main part of the axle. There's also a section, but this isn't as plain. http://www.kesr-operating.org.uk/stephenson.htm Moonraker88 11:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

yes, I can see now from that diagram what is wrong. It shouldnt be too hard to correct. I just need swap the axis of rotation of the crankshaft with that of the driveshaft. I think it would also be useful to add the connecting rod to show where the motion is being derived from. My mistake was that I thought the eccentric was a solid piece, rather than having a separate inner web and outer strap. I will modify the diagram accordingly to make this more obvious. Thanks for your help. Emoscopes ^Talk 15:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Recategorising ship classes

Thank you. Honestly, sometimes it's a relief to get away from controversial articles and stuff and just do something tedious that still makes a difference. TomTheHand 20:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions about changes on classes

I was just sort of curious as to why you completely deleted my article on the Moon or M class destroyers. You seperated the M's up inot several sections, but instead of going through and using the info...i dunno Anyways, Im glad to see the section I like working on the most is getting upgraded. If there is any reason why you would mind me going through and splitting them up and putting them on their new homes let me know because I intend to do so when the time presents itself

Have a barnstar!

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		In recognition of your excellent and untiring work to make Wikipedia more colourful and fun to read, with the addition of pictures! Not least in recognition of the animations made for the Steam engine article, and the map for the Caledonian Sleeper. Pictures speak a thousand words! Keep up the good work! M0RHI 16:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

British shipbuilders evolution

Very nice work! I made a very cursory stab at pinning down the history of British Shipbuilders but couldn't find any sort of reliable/extensive information. Your graph really clears things up and is very well constructed too. Mark83 19:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Vickers

I see you're having a go at sorting out Vickers. Do you intend to reduce the Vickers article as you go or later? GraemeLeggett 15:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm creating the Vickers Limited, Vickers Armstrong and tidying up the Vickers plc articles first, then I will change the Vickers page into a general overview and timeline of the various interests. Emoscopes ^Talk 15:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Pumpjack See also section

You added a “See also” section to pumpjack directing the user to an alternate use of the term “nodding donkey”. Since the alternate meaning had nothing to do with pumpjacks, I moved that information to a disambiguation at the top of the page. —Ben FrantzDale 11:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Anim gif question

I've created an animated gif, using XaraXtreme, - inspired by your deltic anim. However while it looks fine on my machine it appears not to animate once uploaded - could you give me a couple of pointers on the subject? It's at muzzle booster. I fear I may be missing something obvious GraemeLeggett 10:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I was missing something obvious - giving it time to load properly and refresh I think. Sorry to have bothered you.GraemeLeggett 10:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Caledonian Sleeper map

Andy, just been looking through the Caledonian Sleeper timetable, and contrary to my belief, the lowland sleeper does not call at Crewe or Preston, only Euston, Watford and Carlisle are serviced in England. Can j00 amend it, please? Cheers, M0RHI | Talk to me 00:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Done and dusted, Royce Emoscopes ^Talk 07:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Bangor class

I am working through list alphabetically. Do you mind if I temporarily revert to the alphabetical list, as this is going to be much easier for me to update. The article can be reorg'd when I have all the names listed. Davidbober 13:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that. I'll work through. Davidbober 13:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea title dispute

There has been dispute on the title of the discussion. No consensus has been reached, although a compromise has been proposed. Outside opinion is need. Could you participate? (Wikimachine 16:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

I'm afraid that this is well outside of my area of interest and knowledge for me to be of much use. Emoscopes ^Talk 18:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

gun naming

I've gone with your thinking on the matter since

1. Its not a great issue to worry about compared to some renames
2. Theres no opposition per se to the renaming
3. renaming again is not an issue - this is not some sort of move war.

So I've renamed the two big boys to "BL n inch /cabibre naval gun". I also added the 16 incher to the list of artillery for later expansion. GraemeLeggett 11:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, I wasn't trying to force my own personal opinions, just genuinely think that it was the best solution all round. Iv'e put up a request on the 2-pdr gun page as this has previously been moved, I didn't just want to do a speedy on it. Emoscopes ^Talk 11:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

British Shipbuilders evolution

On Image:British Shipbuilders evolution.png, you say that it is generated from a vector file. Could you not upload the vector in SVG format to the Commons? — Wereon 11:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Alas, my vector drawing software doesn't have SVG support. The most "universal" file type I can export to is EMF or WMF, otherwise I would have done that long ago. Emoscopes ^Talk 11:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)