Talk:Power hammer

Question to other editors about external link

_ _ I posted an external link today, but want to make sure this link isn't seen as a problem... I was referencing the Power Hammer page when I realized that I could add some information that clarified the categories/types of Air Hammers better. I then realized I had permission to post a youtube link that clearly demonstrated what I had just referenced in the article. My only concern is that the video is "watermarked" with their website name to prevent it from being misused (posted without reference). Is that a problem? (I don't want it to look like I'm posting a commercial ink). The information on the video clearly demonstrates exactly what an air power hammer is/does. But if others see the watermark as being an issue, then by all means go ahead and remove the video. thanks for your help. RPMetal (User talk:RPMetal) 21:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Many small changes & problems

_ _ The lead seemed to have been written with no awareness of the history in the 2nd 'graph. Not realizing that there used to be power hammers not driven by air pumps would be an easier mistake leading to the implication that air power hammer or a pneumatic hammer are simply synonyms, than would being mistaken in thinking that "power hammer" is acceptable with the intent of including steam hammers. So i've resolved the contradictions by recognizing the broader term.
_ _ It is a valuable rule of thumb that a good article starts with a good dictdef, which guided me in redoing what clearly needed it anyway.
_ _ Re "used predominantly in industrial settings" could include the music industry. I think "industry" just means "goods production". Is that phrase really supposed to mean something like "heavy industry", or something about the size of the production equipment, the number of people employed, or the materials used? (There should be a ref for it anyway, and consulting one may help with the wording.)
_ _ I tagged mechanical as vague: All non-biological devices with moving parts are mechanical in its normal sense. If another sense of "mechanical" is intended, it needs to be clarified.
_ _ The first 2 of the 3 sentences in the 'graph beginning

In 1930 F.J. Hauschild adapted the original stone carver's hammer

are so contradictory, vague, and confusing that i'd have simply dumped them from there to this talk page, but for the fact that i couldn't bear the struggle of trying to put into a clear and relevant sentence the context they establish for the third sentence, which shouldn't suffer due to its association with them. And i'm also unwilling to labor over deciding either which spots in it to leave out in adding the next few tags to, and what the point is when one more well-deserved tag would too many.
_ _ If destined-to-be-classic is in quotes because someone notable called it that, say who it was. If the quotes are there bcz the words are intended to mean something figurative, rather than what the words would otherwise logically mean, say it with different words, that don't rely on users understanding the unstated figurative meanings. If you mean it was destined to be a classic, don't say it at all, since destiny and classicism are matters of opinion and you're trying to inject PoVs into the article as if they were verifiable facts. If you're saying that it did in fact come to be considered a classic by recognized authorities in the history of metalworking, read them to find out what they meant by "classic" and cite them as saying that it had the specific classic-making attributes they had in mind.
_ _ Don't use smart-quotes or fancy apostrophes. And expressions like "1930s" are plural, not possessive, and get no apostrophes.
_ _ Our long (13 kB) article Hughes H-1 Racer says "Many groundbreaking technologies were developed during the construction process, including individually machined flush rivets..." but offers no other hint of further production innovations. Hence removed: "one of the first being the 1934 Hughes H1-Racer"; restoring a version of it is not simply a matter of verification, but also of making clear to the reader that the H1's development was pivotal to, rather than hanging around, the history of the power hammer since for most of our readers, there is life outside of classic aircraft).
_ _ Re "hitting at twice or three times the speed", is that about velocity (and if so why is that interesting?), or repetition rate?
_ _ "Pavement breakers"? -- Anything like the jack hammers that are the only likely candidates seen by 90-98% of our readers?
_ _ "Straightening auto bodies" -- Someone with at least a slight interest should consult the article linked in the same phrase, and add a phrase mentioning either collisions or factories for those tho whom it would make a difference.
_ _ Re the clause

and for that reason each air hammer has a different amount of impact, rate of fire, and degree of controllability.<ref>White, Kent, "Using the Air Power Hammer," Booklet, published by TM Technologies, 2009.</ref>"

it has probably been vandalized in some way, since "that reason" implies having to do with jack-hammer-like devices rather than nail guns!
--Jerzy•t 06:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

"Power hammers are rated in the weight of the ram and range from between 25 pounds and 125 tons." Not plausible that that is primary rating criterion (as insinuated), since powering the downstroke implies that peak force, and probably energy, are crucial to the function -- unless we're restricting the discussion to the previously otherwise neglected power drop hammers.
--Jerzy•t 06:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad article

At present this is a poor article, which is trying to cover too many different things, without adequately discriminating between them. It could potentially be a useful paretn article covering a wide variety of artificially powered hammers, including Trip hammer, drop forge, jack hammer, and probably a few more. The present date given seems dubious to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)