User talk:Wolfkeeper

Werdnabot automatically archives sections on this page that are older than 15 days. The age of a section is determined by its most recent timestamp (sections without a timestamp will not be archived). All archived sections are listed here, by size. When an archive reaches 256 kB, a new one is created. The current archive is Archive 1. A list of all archives is here.

References

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)

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)

WP:LEAD

Kudos on adding the good definition policy from WP:NOT ... a nice touch. But how in the world does this 3-year-old, uncategorized, long-ignored page contribute to the reader's understanding of WP:LEAD?

[begin]

The define and describe rule states that:

1. If its subject is amenable to definition, an article should give a concise, conceptually sound definition in its opening sentence and then proceed with a description.
2. If the article is long (more than one page), the remainder of the opening paragraph should summarize it.

The definitions of definition and description are imperative to this rule.

See debate.

[end] - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's 3 years old doesn't mean anything. You said that it wasn't consensus, but it seems to have been consensus on its talk page, and I couldn't see anything that said otherwise.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with "Just because it's 3 years old doesn't mean anything" ... that's part of the well-established principle from WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS (that often gets under people's skin) that there are no rules on Wikipedia that allow people to ignore material ... such as, it's too old, or you didn't go through the right channels. I think we're on the same page there. But the infobox at the top of every policy and guidelines page that says not to add material unless you believe that it reflects consensus is there for a reason. If I followed your logic, and wandered through all of Wikipedia finding random uncategorized pages from years ago that seemed to have support at the time, and inserted them all into guidelines and policy pages without discussion, that wouldn't be helpful at all. What first sentences should look like is something that's been discussed a lot; what's in WP:LEAD (including See also) should reflect those discussions. I'll ask about this on the talk page at WT:LEAD. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:31, 13 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)

Talkback

Hello, Wolfkeeper. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Wolfkeeper. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

Talkback

Hello, Wolfkeeper. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.