Jump to content

Talk:Coandă-1910

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCoandă-1910 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 10, 2011Good article nomineeListed
October 10, 2012Peer reviewNot reviewed
Current status: Good article

Caondă 1910

[edit]

User:MilborneOne Okay, WHY did you delete it? Was there any reason whatsoever? Any good, real reason? Romanian-and-proud (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know I have never edited this article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not this one, the Jet aircraft one. There was a ton of reasons for the Coandă to be there, yet you deleted it. Romanian-and-proud (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for comment and improvement of the related article Coandă-1910 so your question is not relevant here. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ducted Fan

[edit]

I removed the wording "Ducted fan". It was powered by a centrifugal compressor exausting through a duct. There is no other example of a ducted fan in similar configuration in the scientifical literature. If you would like to keep it, please come with similar examples Florinbaiduc (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Florin Baiduc[reply]

So it can't be a unique example of a configuration? That's no reasoning at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The term comes from our sources which discuss the aircraft, not from looking at the parts and guessing what they should or should not be called. Binksternet (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources using the term "centrifugal compressor" [1]
We should use the best available term describing what it is, especially since the current dispute is due mainly to bad nomenclature. Mihaiam (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Coanda-1910.html
You think a self-published paper model website is a reliable source? Binksternet (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's proof this is the term currently describing the device.
There are a lot more such sources while "ducted fan" is seldom found outside this Wikipedia page [1] [2] [3]
I dont't think a misnomer used by some journalist in 1910 should be taken as authoritative. Mihaiam (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Romanian book, self-published by authors Florian Ion Petrescu and Relly Victoria Petrescu, reveals that the Petrescus are promoting Romanian inventors without any attempt to be neutral. For instance, they tell the reader that Coanda says he made a brief flight in December 1910, with the aircraft destroyed in a crash, but the Petrescus fail to inform the reader that Coanda fabricated the flight – he never attempted to fly this aircraft. Let's not turn this article into a vehicle for Romanian nationalists. Binksternet (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The book doesn't tell such a thing, they merely listed Coandă's much later claim without endorsing it.

The exact wording is: "Decades later, after the practical demonstration of motorjets and turbojets, Coandă asserted that his turbo-propulseur was the first motorjet engine complete with fuel combustion in the air stream. He also said that he had made a single brief flight in December 1910 crashing just after take-off, the aircraft destroyed by fire"

Naming the device what it is, a centrifugal compressor, have nothing to do with Romanian nationalism since it makes the plane even more unlikely to be capable of flight while ducted fans are workable solutions still in use.
Please don't confuse this small naming issue with the much more incredible claim of Coandă to have fuel injection and burning in the compressor at the time Mihaiam (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ducted fan, again

[edit]

Please stop defining Coanda's plane as propeled by a ducted fan!!. His plane was propelled by a centrifugal compressor. It's a completely different principle than that of a ducted fan! Check the drawings and pictures of Coanda's engine, then look at some ducted fans (propellers within a duct). A ducted fan can propel without the duct, a centrifugal compressor can not propel without one. Florinbaiduc 13:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a centrifugal compressor. However that is a subset of ducted fans, not something using a "completely different principle".
Coanda's innovation was to enclose the turbopropulseur in a duct, thus becoming a ducted fan. He also (inferring from the 1912 patent) used a design that was aimed at compression more than simply accelerating a mass of air, as a propeller does. This does not stop it being a ducted fan though. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is not a subset of a ducted fan! a ducted fan can propel without the duct. a centrifugal compressor not.--Florinbaiduc (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • As to your attack on me, and editors generally, " Amazing how some people lack the education to see this difference!!" then that is irrelevant (it also fails WP:NPA and you don't even know what education other editors have either). We work by independent sources here, not the personal opinions of editors. The sources term this a "ducted fan".
Your claim, "A ducted fan can propel without the duct" is particularly odd. A ducted fan without a duct is no longer a ducted fan, so what does that show about anything? Also if the duct is (I would agree) more important for producing thrust with a compressor than with a propeller, then why does that make a compressor-in-a-duct less appropriate to use the term than a propeller-in-a-duct? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easy: a ducted fan is a propeller in a duct, and can propel without the duct, because it sends the air towards the back. A centrifugal compressor send the air radially towards outside, and does not generate thrust without a properly shaped case. A trivial, albeit critical difference. I tried to explain it a number of times, only to get the changes reverted without explanation. That is also known as vandalism! --Florinbaiduc (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you don't even understand what a duct is, or the effect it has on Reynolds number, which is the reason for using a duct in the first place. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'm not claiming anything, but a motorjet is a better definition than a ducted fan, as it is nearer to the physical principles behind it working...There is nowhere else in the literature a claim similar to yours, calling a centrifugal compressor a ducted fan. I know, it doesn't fit your agenda, but extraordinary claims must be baked by extraordinary evidence --Florinbaiduc (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you appreciate what a motorjet is? That it is a motor-driven compressor, followed by the combustion of fuel? Do you claim that Coanda was burning fuel in the duct of the 1910 aircraft? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Centrifugal compressors are not just a subset of ducted fans. They use a different kind of fan, centrifugal as opposed to axial. [4]
Either way, the most specific term, "centrifugal compressor", should be used. Mihaiam (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coandă's device was both a ducted fan and also a centrifugal compressor. Its action (as a 'propulsor') was that of being a ducted fan. Its detailed implementation may have been a centrifugal compressor (it was either a centrifugal compressor, or at least a centrifugal fan), but that doesn't stop its main function. It is definitely not a centrifugal compressor, as applied to gas turbine engines.
It's not clear if this was a centrifugal compressor (i.e. with compression) or merely a fan (accelerating the air without significantly compressing it). We don't have a surviving example, I'm unaware if accurate replicas have been tested for this, and it's not the sort of thing which can be proven merely by looking at a presumed drawing of this time.
But what is clear is that its function, and how we have to primarily describe it, is as a ducted fan. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'propulsor' was most certainly a centrifugal compressor and patented as such at the time. [5]
It also was not just a ducted fan, having elements ducted fans lack like a diffuser.
If it's function should give the name we could just name it a jet engine, it's intended action being the same.Mihaiam (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a diffuser visible in the patent drawings. Nor is one an essential part of a ducted fan (although it would improve efficiency, it's still a ducted fan without).
In no way is this a jet engine, as it's not an engine (it produces no power). It's a power-consuming fan, driven by a Clerget piston engine. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding a diffuser to a ducted fan in order to slow the flow and increase the static pressure makes the whole apparatus a centrifugal compressor.
I don't think it would improve propulsion efficiency, quite the opposite. Mihaiam (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.ro/books?id=_x89AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=coanda+1910++compressor+centrifugal&source=bl&ots=W1pbMZtAme&sig=ACfU3U1ftij-7xbS_a52xddC1BsWMOwyew&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2leWHtbjhAhWPfFAKHTTNC80Q6AEwDnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=coanda%201910%20%20compressor%20centrifugal&f=false
  2. ^ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270530302_COANDA-1910_-_the_first_jet_propulsor_for_airplane
  3. ^ https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=682
  4. ^ http://www.savioclima.com/en/axial-fans-and-centrifugal-fans-comparison
  5. ^ https://blog.exair.com/2018/12/13/henri-coanda-june-7-1886-november-25-1972/

Here is the best source for "ducted fan", coming from a modern engineer and writer, published in the Smithsonian's Air & Space magazine. See Coanda’s Claim by Frank H. Winter. The article appeared in December 2010. Binksternet (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article also name it a "super vacuum cleaner" in the same breath. I don't think it intended to be a technical description, rather it used some common analogies.Mihaiam (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notice etc

[edit]

I have read the discussions here and added an edit notice and some hidden text to the article. See if that makes any difference. --John (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

In the Memorials and models section, it mentions a 10-leu coin and a price of 220 leu. In Romanian, leu is singular and lei is plural. The correct usage should be a 10-lei coin at a price of 220 lei. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.95.1.11 (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, it now says lei. Thanks for the correction. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there is a 1/10 scale model on display at the ICAO museum in Montreal i forgot to note the inscription but it does mention the 2nd International Aeronautical Exhibition and refers to the craft as the first jet plane mike(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coandă-1910&oldid=1233678272"