Talk:Steam motor

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Undiscussed deletions[edit]

Mr Dingley, why do you consider that the Stuart Turner engines are unrelated? They have many of the features of a steam motor, e.g. small size, enclosed crankshaft lubrication, high rotational speed. Biscuittin (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a fast answer, because your changes were WP:UNCITED. Also because they were quite wrong.

The real answer though is that the "steam motor" concept was a notion specifically for locomotives, where multiple pre-existing standard engines could be applied through per-axle geared drives, rather than the Stephenson locomotive notion of a handful of large cylinders driving coupled wheels in unison.

Stuart Turner built small single-cylinder engines, predominantly for steam launches. They also built two, relatively rare, single-acting engine designs with enclosed (although unsophisticated) crankcase lubrication: the Sirius and the Sun. These were pretty much toys, as were many of ST's other smaller designs. They certainly weren't comparable to a Belliss & Morcom or a Westinghouse. They were designed to have high rotational speed, but most of all to have single-acting pistons and piston valves (neither general ST features) so that they were usable with semi-flash and flash boilers. The famous market for the Sirius was of course with racing model hydroplanes. Another well-known use for these engines was the ST military radio generating set, an engine that certainly deserves its own WP article.

I notice also that you removed the redlink to high-speed steam engine. Why? This is where the common ground you vaguely hint at exists, not with the steam motor. Once again I find myself editing against a deadline because you mess with any redlinks I leave in an article and turn them into quite inappropriate redirects. I went through and linked Mekydro from a number of pages ready to add the article, only to have you then make it a redirect to torque converter! - when the whole point of the Mekydro transmission, compared to the Voith, is that it's a mechanical gearbox, not a series of torque converters. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steam motors do not have to be in locomotives. If you wanted to write an article exclusively about locomotives you should have entitled it Steam motor locomotives. As regards redlinks, I have no way of knowing when you are going to write a future article and my redirects do not prevent you from writing an article. In my experience, redlinks usually hang around for a long time and then end up pointing to an irrelevant article. I see nothing wrong with redirecting Mekydro to torque converter. A Mekydro transmission uses one torque converter and a Voith uses two or three but they are both torque converter transmissions. Biscuittin (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steam motors do not have to be in locomotives.

Citation please. Show me any one example of this concept that isn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Sirius, used in generating set.[1] Biscuittin (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you've shown a reference for the note I added just above, saying that the Sirius was used for the radio generator set. Now how about finding one relevant to steam motors, or one that shows the steam motor concept elsewhere than a locomotive or railcar. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please define a steam motor. Biscuittin (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about that above, "The "steam motor" concept was a notion specifically for locomotives, where multiple pre-existing standard engines could be applied through per-axle geared drives, rather than the Stephenson locomotive notion of a handful of large cylinders driving coupled wheels in unison."

Now in this context you might reasonable claim that's a circular definition, because it limits it to locomotives in that definition. However the work by Sentinel and Doble that first popularised the idea was specifically for locomotives. The first example, although rather a dead end, was the Paget locomotive. All locomotives. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please yourself - I can't be bothered with a long argument about it. Biscuittin (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move proposal[edit]

The author of the article Steam motor has made a categorical assertion that the article is exclusively about locomotives. I therefore propose to move it to Steam motor locomotive. As this move is likely to be controversial, I am inviting comments before I make the move. Biscuittin (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Gratuitous neologism just to annoy another editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Steam motor locomotive is a type of locomotive, like a Climax locomotive, Geared steam locomotive, Heisler locomotive or Shay locomotive, so it would be consistent to include the word "locomotive" in the title. Biscuittin (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these here are railcars, not locomotives (in the narrow sense). Now these are still not stationary or marine engines, as you first added, but nor is adding "locomotive" as a suffix an appropriate or improving change. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds reasonable, I have withdrawn my move proposal. So now it includes both locomotives and railcars. Perhaps this opens the door to other applications in the future. Biscuittin (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]