Talk:Alan Blumlein

Fair use rationale for Image:Alan Blumlein.jpg

Image:Alan Blumlein.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sabotage

I think it appropriate to include the bit about sabotage being suspected in Blumlein's death, especially since the government acted to hush the event just in case it was. However, the suspicion must be accompanied by the phrase "never proved" or similar. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Alexander's book devotes an entire chapter to the crash and, unlike the author of the 1990 New Scientist piece, he had access to the official RAF accident investigation report. Its conclusion is prosaic and there's no suspicion of sabotage at all. It appears that three hours before the flight, the starboard outer engine was serviced and that the lock nut on one of 48 tappet nuts was insufficiently tightened and worked loose during the flight, leading to an engine fire. That so many people should have died because of one slightly loose lock nut is a tragedy that hurts people still alive today. It isn't right or fair to the next of kin to perpetuate idle speculation that has been comprehensively debunked.--Harumphy (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, the same AAIB Chief Inspector of Accidents, Vernon Brown, also lead the enquiries into the loss of the post-war Star Tiger and Star Ariel airliners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The aircraft carried a highly-secret cavity magnetron which is why Churchill 'hushed up' the accident. Bernard Lovell rushed to the accident site and retrieved the remains of the device later the same night of the accident.

Ultralinear description

The explanation of the operation of the ultralinear design (which the article says is "one of Blumlein's greatest innovations") is very bad. It is clouded in murky language to make it sound mysterious and difficult. Yet, in spite of the impressively pseudo-boffin prose, it gets the thing wrong! If he could, I'm fairly certaiin Mr. Blumlein would read this description, chuckle, get out his spectacles and begin to explain how the ultralinear tapped output transformer is actually connected. He would then go on to reveal the difference between a triode, a tetrode, and a pentode and the impact of the screen grid tap on negative feedback. In the process, he would probably draw a precise schematic of the thing. Surely this isn't too much to ask Wikipedia to do, given Blumlein's gigantic contributions to modern technological life!--CoolBlueGlow (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)