User talk:Greglocock/Archive 1

Hey there! Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like this place--I sure do--and want to stay. If you need help on how to title new articles check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and The FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check The Village pump or The Reference Desk! Happy wiki-ing! Alexandros

Re: Archimedes Plutonium

(Re: your message on my talk page) I felt that Archimedes Plutonium needed to undergo a complete AfD process, with general community input, considering that:

• It's recently undergone a bit of an odd AfD, which didn't seem to reach concensus
• It was subsequently put up for speedy deletion, and removed
• I didn't feel that it was notable

It looks like the AfD will end with 100% agreement to keep, which will at least stop the debate about whether the page is notable or not. Mike Peel 07:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

List of important publications in physics

Please add a "Description" section and an "Importance" section to the entries you have just added to this list to justify their notability. Thanks. --Bduke 05:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the descriptions are fine, but under "Importance" you should say which of the five categories at the top of the page this comes under and give some kind of reason, not "High". --Bduke 06:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I helped out with the formatting. --Bduke 07:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Bismarck

Who are you to "give me one week"? I'm going to report you to an administrator bigpad 20:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. Tremble tremble. A week seemed a reasonable amount of time to find your references, given that I am reasonably confident that they don't exist. If you need longer, why not ask ? Quite why giving someone one week to find verifiable references is worse than just deleting their changes out of hand without discussion (as you did to my edits) is a concept that eludes me. I'll repeat: Find references for each of the three aspects of the article that are uncyclopaedic or ridiculous, or I will edit the article, and when I start editing it'll be more than just a couple of rephrases. Frankly it needs a complete rewrite anyway, almost all of the design details should be on the other Bis page.Greglocock 21:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Two reports have been made to Wikipedia. Let's see what happens bigpad 21:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You want cheese with that? Greglocock 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

5 months later, complete silence from whoever the whiner complained to. Case closed. Greglocock 11:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

comments not deleted

I did not delete your comments to my talk page - I moved your comments, along with other comments, to an archive page (this movement of comments, on one's own talk page, is allowed).

The reason why I removed your comment about the Goodies episode, from the Goodies talk page, is because there is no verification that the Goodies even thought of 'Spoonerism' when the title was thought of - in fact there have been comments that, apart from the specials, the Goodies did not name their episodes (which is the reason why some episodes have multiple titles).

With regard to the episode, itself, there is no clear indication that such a crude spoonerism (degrading women) as you are thinking of, was ever intended (if you think so, then you must not know the episode very well). The episode was filled with very dangerous stunts, performed by the Goodies, themselves. Spoonerisms, as you are no doubt aware, were a feature of some of "The Two Ronnies" episodes, and were delivered by Ronnie Barker.

You have virtually stated that I am a wowser (a killjoy). What for? Just because I do not want to have a crude unverified spoonerism added to the Goodies information does not make me one. I happen to love "The Goodies" episodes (why, otherwise, would I have created the pages I have done - and also written the plot summaries I have for the episodes etc. etc.). I have also personally met Tim, Bill and Graeme and found them to be very nice people. Figaro 14:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that is an ancient joke. If they referred to Cunning Stunts then they would have had to have known the joke, as a phrase it makes little sense otherwise. Other examples of bawdy humour include (from memory) :

TBT: I used to like "Muffin the Mule" GG: I thought that was illegal BO: Giggles

I'm sure they are nice people. That doesn't stop them from having a sense of humour.

However, that is not the point. The point is you removed my comments from an article's talk page. That is bad etiquette, you do not own my comments. So, how do you intend to resolve this?

Greglocock 22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know what gives you the right to personally abuse me (as a wowser) on the article talk page, and also abuse me personally on my own talk page, for no better reason than I feel that a vulgar spoonerism (which is an indignity towards women) is not appropriate with regard to the particlar Goodies episode in question. (If you feel that your take on the title is correct, then why don't you ask the Goodies personally about this — and yes, before you again unjustifiably accuse me of studipity, there is a way of accomplishing this).

I have never claimed that members of the Goodies do not have a bawdy sense of humour (of course they do), and I do not think harshly of them for this — but you have never given me the benefit of the doubt with regard to this, when you have attacked me.

With regard to my deleting inappropriate non-encyclopedia speculation from a talk page of an article, I am not the only user — nor am I the first — to have done this.

And yes, I am perfectly aware that anybody can revert any pages on Wikipedia — I have been reverting vandalism to Wikipedia for years now in an attempt to make Wikipedia a respected encyclopedia — it did not need your 'lecture' to me on the topic (along with your personal abuse of me).

In case you do not know it, personal abuse (by a user against another user) is against Wikipedia policy and is not allowed (or does that not count with you). Figaro 01:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to the point. Do you acknowledge that you should not have edited my comments off the talk page? I agree, accusing you of being a wowser would not have been a great move on my part, but you'll notice that I didn't actually do that. If I write "User F is a wowser" then that may or may not be against Wiki policy, but I am damn sure that "statement X smells of wowserism" (or the equivalent) does not break any rules. If you can find an admin who agrees with you, fine. I am prepared to go the yards on this one, I do not like censorshipGreglocock 05:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment, on The Goodies (TV series) talk page, ended with the sentence "...Funny to see such wowserism on a Goodies page.". This is the reason why I said that you called me a wowser (after all, I was the person to whose comments you were replying to, so the remark was a very pointed and unmistakable dig at myself by you).

There was also the very insulting comment you made about me on my talk page, as well as the threat of punitive action you intended to take against me unless I did your bidding by the 23 February deadline (the insult and threat against me were the personal abuse which I was actually referring to in my comment above).

Anyway, the reason why I came to this talk page in the first place (tonight) was to let you know that the section has been restored to The Goodies (TV series) talk page (don't gloat though — the section was restored in spite of your threat, not because of it). I returned the section to the page because of it being, after all, on an article talk page. Figaro 15:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Good. And don't play the victim, you created this situation. Greglocock 21:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

3 months later, complete failure to do as he promised. Case closed. Greglocock 11:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vibraimage

I noticed your edit to the mention of "Vibraimage" in the Vibration article. Perhaps you would care to comment on the afd? Thanks -- Shunpiker 15:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Greg! I don't understand your comment on the afd. Could you clarify why, besides being real, it meets the standards for notability? Thanks -- Shunpiker 01:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you are on a crusade. I am not. If we were to rigorously apply notability to wiki we could fit it on a floppy disk. Given that the rules aren't rules, I'd rather leave stuff in than rip it out. Personal preference and all that. Greglocock 12:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the consideration. -- Shunpiker 09:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please continue to sap the value of Wikipedia for it's users

Well, then that is a total loss to your users, and I don't understand the need or use for an 'external links' section to be available at all. Even the links that are still there are wholly irrelevant to the topics that they are attached to. In my case, while the entries I post are in a blog format from an operational perspective, it is mostly a teaching blog that educates on various topics and techniques that match to many of your current topics and categories on wikipedia. In almost every case, the content is far better than the garbage provided by Wikipedia on these topics and I felt that linking to my posts would be of tremendous benefit to the users/readers of this site to get quality information and detail on these topics. I am sorry that you feel that users of this system should be denied access to this information. Thanks for your time and lack of consideration. Craigwb 2:38, 14 March 2007 (EST)

Nice overreaction to a very polite note on your talk page. Get a grip kiddo. Or undo my change. As I said, in retrospect I was unsure whether it was a good link or not. Greglocock 22:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The comment by William Greene is broadly correct

because of your last statement and because he did not say improve. MP3s at high bit rates are usually audibly indistinguishable from the original for music. Records have clearly audible deviations which some may prefer. FM radio is a bit like MP3 in that its ultimate performance depends on the resources allocated and so, if keen, a bit of quibbling is an option.

Unfortunately, people seem to be losing sight of the topic which is audiophiles. The comment about audiophiles not using MP3s as a source a good one. Audiophiles do use records as a source despite the poor performance. Whether they should use MP3s or records on performance grounds may have some relevance to the article but must be secondary to what audiophiles are and what they do. HonestGuv 09:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, take a digital stream of information (say a CD). Remove some of the information from that stream. How can that stream with a reduced data content be a better representation of the original datastream? Greglocock 10:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with your statement except it does not refute what was said. I have just rechecked the context and can I suggest you do likewise. If you still do not think you have made a mistake in reading something into William Greene's statement that is not there then fine. HonestGuv 11:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. However I think you should reread his comment in the context of the whole discussion. More generally Greene's attitude does not encourage me to pay detailed attention to whichever of his prejudices are currently being aired. FWIW I listen to FM, MP3, CD and LPs. In my experience 192 MP3s have to be made very carefully, but 320s generally seem good. Blanket statements about MP3s as a whole class seem rather dangerous to me. Oh, and LPs don't necessarily have poor performance, they have compromised performance - just like every other system. Greglocock 11:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Problems with HRTF?

A question from the audiophile page but not about audiophiles. The HRTF would appear to be a well defined quantity which prompts the question what are the problems with HRTF and localisation? HonestGuv 07:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a long standing problem, which I am pleased to see mentioned in the wiki article, whereby it is impossible to identify whether a sound is coming from (roughly) 45 degrees up, ahead of you, or behind, from a good binaural recording, whereas it is clear as night and day when you do the test yourself with your eyes shut. There are a number of theories about this, but no-one has solved it for the general case, even using silicon casts of the listener's pinea. I like that as an example of how we don't know everything, there are plenty more, just with sound, never mind music. For instance, I'd really enjoy discussing whether we can hear phase... and how an objectivists measures the difference in quality between a 192 and 384 MP3. Engineers are far more pragmatic than amateurs, we KNOW that we don't know everything.Greglocock 09:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The difference between the two transfer functions is straightforward to quantify theoretically and therefore one would assume straightforward to compare with what was assumed/used when making the binaural recording. I have looked in the wikipedia articles which mentions measurement difficulties but I have not found a mention of theoretical difficulties. Do you have a reference to a statement of the problem on the web or in a journal? HonestGuv 10:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, I'd just be searching the same journals as you. I've used an Aachen HEAD for many years, and a B&K head for an evaluation. They both suffered from the problem, Aachen were up front about it, and have many hypotheses, but the last HEAD we bought still suffers from the same problem. It was Aachen who told me that it is NOT the pinea, and it is not micromovements of the head (which were my first guesses). Since we don't use the HEAD to establish directivity it is not a big deal to me, for measurement/evaluation purposes. FWIW it would be interesting to do a near field and far field study, in a small room and an open field. I no longer work in NVH, so don't get to play with those toys any more. Here's another idea - resonance of the thoracic cavity is known to be a factor in binaural recordings - perhaps there is a bone conduction path from there to the inner ear that provides a third 'sensor'. Greglocock 22:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have followed up a bit but the person here who knows most about the dummy head is still away on holiday. I have found nothing so far on the effect you mention but both the pinnae and head motion have a substantial role for localisation on the symmetry plane. One thing that does strike me is that if you were not listening using your own HRTF but that of the dummy head + headphone then it would seem quite reasonable to expect problems in areas where the detailed shape of your own pinnae plays a dominant role. HonestGuv 07:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, they are part of the general directivity problem, however they have been eliminated as causes of this particular ambiguity. I'm surprised you can't find any papers on this, if I remember I'll read the documentation out at the lab in a couple of weeks. meanwhile http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/10826/34122/01625968.pdf looks promising. The references in http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Health-Sciences-and-Technology/HST-723Spring-2005/E4F1DCA1-B6AA-469E-A93C-91F07F97D422/0/t3_binaural.pdf may be good. Greglocock 19:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

6 weeks later, complete silence about HRTF problems. Case closed. Greglocock 11:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Stax Earspeakers

Honestly what the hell, I feel that Stax Earspeakers are more like a class themself. You definitely should talk about it at the Bose talk page, as Stax should be considered something that should be competing against low-mass audiophilic likes (i.e. Grado Labs) because Stax Earspeakers should compete against a Grado, Ultrasone, or Sennheiser Audiophile Type, NOT against some Consumer-grade headphones like Bose. Please talk about it why Stax deserves to be there. So, I'm going to have to delete it since it's considered to be POV due to what you declared on the edit summary!!! — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 01:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so they aren't a novelty, which is the word you used in the edit summary. I agree Bose don't make a headphone that can compete with them. I am very bored with the Bose fanboys, that article can degenerate into an ad, for all I care and then we'll delete it and replace it with an encyclopaedic article about the Bose company. Which will be short and objective. Greglocock 11:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Tuned mass damper

You have to have a source that says that the FIA got it wrong, you can't just give your own personal opinion. If there's a news report somewhere that states that the FIA should have ruled the other way because the device was entirely enclosed, that would be a reliable source. Otherwise, that statement looks like conjecture and needs to be removed/sourced. -- nae'blis 01:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I did wonder which statement you were asking for a cite for. I took it that it applied to the nearest sentence. FWIW I don't think we should mention that controversy at all since only about 30 (WAG) people know the truth. Greglocock 23:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Automotive Engineering

In that case I think you have thoroughly abused the merge process. If you didn't understand the difference between the two why did you not ask the question on the Talk page? I suggest you revert the merge and ask the question properly. And I also suggest you read up on the merge process. So far your contribution looks more like vandalism than useful editing. Greglocock 23:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think really the person that is doing nothing to improve a short, really a stub, article is you. Wikipedia is based in a NPOV and doesn´t not support corporativism, where your arguments are based. And personal attacks also are not allowed. So, if you have something to say about the differences (if there is a clear difference), you can add them to the article.

"Vehicle engineering is a specialized engineering discipline that is unique to the automotive industry. The Vehicle Engineer has the responsibility to deliver the engineering attributes of a complete vehicle (bus, car, truck, van, SUV, etc.) as dictated by the automobile manufacturer, governmental regulations, and the customer who buys the product".

"Automotive engineering is a branch of mechanical engineering, incorporating elements of mechanical, electrical, electronic, software and safety engineering as applied to the design, manufacture and operation of automobiles, buses and trucks and their respective engineering subsystems".

It´s clear an automobile is a vehicle. The two definitions talks about bus, cars, trucks... The relations between the two must be included in the article, and not in the talk page. On the other hand, if you are uncapable of explain, better don´t try to write encyclopedic content --Altermike 06:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you on about? WP:NPOV has absolutely nothing to do with this (though you shout it every time you make a comment on a talk page). Nor does corporatism. It's a simple case of you having one opinion, three other contributors having another, and you ignoring consensus and making a move without following proper process. --DeLarge 07:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly in my opinion the issue has nothing to do with cars or corporations and a great deal to do with your abuse of the merge process. FWIW I wouldn't actually argue very strongly either way about the original merge, but on balance ALL THREE comments were opposed to the merge and yet you went ahead anyway. Greglocock 09:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I go to see what is in Talk:Automotive engineering and I saw nothing !. I really think the coordination between both articles it´s the worst possible. And believe that was not made a good work. Congratulations, we can read the same twice in two "different" articles. --Altermike 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is an empty talk page of any interest to me? You do not make any sense. Greglocock 22:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As already mentioned at your talk page, the reason Talk:Automotive engineering was empty was because the discussion area set up by you when you placed the merge template on the page directed other editors to the wrong page, namely to Talk:Vehicle Engineering. You "found nothing" because you were looking in the wrong place. --DeLarge 13:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It´s clear in the talk page appears anonym users. And you reverted on the base of anonym users. On the other hand, you talk about difference in the talk page, without include them in the article. Finally, the article is repeated twice, FIRST (because was the first in the time), in vehicle engineering and now copied in automotive engineering. They are the first two articles of the duplicationpedia (+anonympedia). --Altermike 16:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you obviously don't understand English or logic this is obviously going to be a bit hard to explain. YOU were looking in the wrong place for comments opposing the merge, at least one of which was not anonymous. Secondly, most of the problem is with the content of the vehicle engineering page. I suggest you re-read the intro para, where I have at least tried to point out that vehicle engineering is a rather small speciality in automotive engineering. ANYWAY, if you can't understand that at least stop polluting my user talk page with your inane arguments. Greglocock 23:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on my latest proposal to Talk:Vehicle engineering--Drussel3 11:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Twist-beam rear suspension‎

Sorry about that - I clicked the wrong thing when I was trying to unwatch. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Bourke engine

Greg..are we finished with bourke...?? <g>

Thank you for your comments and help....I have learned a lot from you

Do not know how I missed the page that explained the engine and showed tests...either it was down when I was doing research or I somehow completely forgot it....however was for the good as forced me to figure things out for myself....

thanks again...have fun.....sno

Greg...I noticed the removal of the wiki thread on the eng forum...do you know why the thread might have been removed...?? I emailed them but have not received any response...I missed the last two postings on this thread and am curios what they said.

thanks for resonse in advance and for past help....sno2 sno@opelc.com

It's a forum for work related posts for professional engineers. It became very obvious that you are not a professional engineer, and you are not working on a Bourke engine, so it got zapped. Greglocock 00:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh.....I am a graduate of the Army Nuclear course at Ft Belvoir, VA, which was/is..??..accepted by industry as a engineering degree...because of teaching experience I am used to converting everything to a simplified explanation and simple questions can accomplish a lot of teaching..I probably have more knowledge of engines than I have shown on wiki page and forum...understand now why forum thread was removed...thank you for your explanation...do your remember the last two posts on the forum, as I missed them and am curious as to what they were. Have not used any of my knowledge for years because have mostly worked in a supervisory position since 1982 and am presently retired. Have forgotten a lot, especially the math, as you say I am not a working professional and working on Bourke page can hardly be counted as working on engine...<grin>

Thank you for listening to this explanation.....have fun....sno

There wasn't much - mostly links back to the main bourke engine website, and a further bit about emissions.Greglocock 09:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Greg...on your comment on posting what I do not understand... Nuke school...heavy on nuclear physics..thermodynamics...general heat engine etc...chemistry...electronics/electricity (power transmission, etc)...plus some health courses..just about anything you might run across at nuke generating plant... almost forgot...also qualified as plant operator...sno2

So why do you post drivel like the adibiatic stuff? It is basic thermodynamics that if there is heat transfer then the process is not adiabatic (cos that's the definition). If you want me to take your edits seriously I suggest you read up on the theory behind IC engines, rather than randomly posting irrleevant or misleading information. Greglocock 09:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Greg...since for some reason you have not gone to the adibiatic page to look up adibiatic heating and cooling here is a direct quote from that page

quote Adiabatic heating and cooling are processes that commonly occur due to a change in the pressure of a gas. Adiabatic heating occurs when the pressure of a gas is increased. An example of this is what goes on in a bicycle pump. After using a pump to inflate a pneumatic tire or ball, the barrel of the pump is found to have heated up as a result of adiabatic heating. Diesel engines rely on adiabatic heating during their compression stroke to elevate the temperature sufficiently to ignite the fuel. Adiabatic heating also occurs in the Earth's atmosphere when an air mass descends, for example, in a katabatic wind or Foehn wind flowing downhill.

Adiabatic cooling occurs when the pressure of a substance is decreased, such as when it expands into a larger volume. An example of this is when the air is released from a pneumatic tire; the outlet air will be noticeably cooler than the tire. Adiabatic cooling does not have to involve a fluid. One technique used to reach very low temperatures (thousandths and even millionths of a degree above the theory of absolute zero) is adiabatic demagnetisation, where the change in magnetic field on a magnetic material is used to provide adiabatic cooling. Adiabatic cooling also occurs in the Earth's atmosphere with orographic lifting and lee waves, and this can form pileus or lenticular clouds if the air is cooled below the dew point.

Such temperature changes can be quantified using the ideal gas law, or the hydrostatic equation for atmospheric processes.

It should be noted that no process is truly adiabatic. Many processes are close to adiabatic and can be easily approximated by using an adiabatic assumption, but there is always some heat loss. There is no such thing as a perfect insulator. unquote

Here is a quote from the internet physics page that may explain your possible confusion [1]

ADIABATIC COOLING AND HEATING OF GASES-An adiabatic process is one in which no heat is gained or lost by the system. An adiabatic process may be accomplished by thermal insulation or by making rapid changes in volume so that there is no time for heat to be exchanged. The first law of thermodynamics with Q=0 shows that all the change in internal energy is in the form of work done DU = -A. When a gas expands adiabatically it does positive work. The internal energy drops and the temperature drops too. On the contrary, when gas is compressed it does the negative work and the temperature rises. Temperature is the measure of kinetic energy of chaotic motion of the molecules. Higher temperatures correspond to more intense motion of the gas molecules. On a microscopic level it means that when the piston compresses a gas, the speed at which the molecule will be reflected from the piston will be greater than its initial speed. Therefore after reflection from the piston the molecule of gas will receive an additional energy which will be redistributed with time between all molecules of gas due to their mutual collisions.

An adiabatic process is one in which no heat is gained or lost by the system. Therefore there can be no cooling of the piston or cylinder by the expanding gas. Nuff said. Please assume that this conversation is over. Greglocock 22:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Greg, sorry this point is important to the operation of the bourke engine, so would prefer not to drop it. There is a Heat Transfer & Thermodynamics engineering Forum on the eng-tips site. I think we can both agree that they would be the final experts on this matter. Since I can not post there since I am not a professional, could you post the question of what gas heating and cooling is called and wether it occurs in the bourke engine..thanks for your help....Sno2 23:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would I expose myself to ridicule? The definition of adiabatic is that heat transfer does not take place. Therefore if heat transfer takes place the process is not adiabatic. What is so hard to understand? Now, as to whether the expansion stroke is adiabatic then, yes it is considered to be in the ideal Otto cycle. But in that case the piston and cylinder must transmit no heat to or from the gas. Since in practice some heat transfer occurs, it is no longer adiabatic. That is why truly high efficiency engines are often run with insulated piston tops, etc. Greglocock 04:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Understanding Bourke

Greg...I have been playing with a understanding bourke comment on my sandbox take a look at it and tell me if you think it would be appropriate to put on bourke page...if it would help people...in the simp expl sect as an introduction....thanks....Sno2 22:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Back am going to add the introduction will see what people think...Sno2 00:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion it is misleading and poorly written. I suggest you stop changing the Bourke page until it has been peer reviewed. Greglocock 00:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right...but am going to leave it...if for no other reason then to give them more to tear apart...<g>Sno2 00:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Supercharging

I have been looking around...and cannot find any other engine that uses positive displacement piston supercharging...since it is unique to the bourke...and the way it is done is probaby more efficient then other ways of doing it..shouldn't it be included....??....under design features...positive displacement piston supercharging...??...Sno2 03:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't have looked very hard, every two stroke motorbike engine that I have ever worked on uses crankcase compression. It is not supercharging, because the net effect is to fill one cylinder with one cylinder's volume of gas, as in a normal four stroke. Greglocock 23:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Bourke Critique Questions #2 Alex

Greg, I've been working with Roger Richards and Bob Ziegler for the past 2 years to have independent government testing perform on the engine. They have proved me great deal of information about the engine and its history. I'm government DoD engineer and have evaluate this engine, and I have had university professors engine specialists, and other professionals review the engine merits. We are confident that many of the claims on the engine high fuel efficiency and low green house gas emission are worth evaluating. Please do not edit the Bourke critique or the Bourke Engine page. If you are directly involved with the some development aspect of the engine or would like to be involved I would like to hear from you. Otherwise, please refrain from making editorial changes to the website unless you can prove and justify the changes. Thank You, --Alexfine (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not the way it works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I am a professional automotive engineer, which doesn't mean much in wiki, but it sure means a lot elsewhere. I am an Assocate Member of the Institute of Mechanicsl Engineers, have a very posh degree, and have worked for car companies for 20 years or more. I have also designed a crankshaft that was in production, and spent several years working on engines. You are asking the world to believe some very odd claims for an engine that has some very fundamental problems. Therefore, unless you can provide documented evidence for those claims I will persist in deleting them. At the very least review WP:OR and WP:RS Cheers Greglocock (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Bourke Critique Questions

Greg....some questions on critique....on number one do you mean seal between air compression chamber and crankcase..??

Yes

number four...where did you get info on trouble with flipper bearing..??....have seen where other people trying to use point contact bearings...(tapered roller bearings)...have had trouble with this....flipper bearings are a type of self pressurizing bearings and have capabilities of externally presurized bearings.

From peswiki

Had a hard time finding peski...and even harder time finding anything about the bearings....assume this is page you are talking about....page this, to me, does not look like a very good reference...since they think the bourke as designed uses a roller bearing....I notice on the pages that they are claiming that bourke invented the slipper bearing...it is nothing but a tilting pad bearing...according to wikipedia it was first used around the 1900's...way before boukes time. Wherever they got there info it does not appear accurate. Balance...the only balance problems I see are that the explosions must be aprox equal...if they are not then the engine will shake itself apart...I would expect....the compression and charge must be aprox equal in cylinders

You are ignoring the fundamental inertial balance of the engine. A large mass is accelerating and decelerating sideways.

Do to the action of the yoke it starts decelarating almost as soon as the piston leaves BDC...and is smoothly brought to a stop at the top of the sine wave....as is smoothly brought up to speed from TDC...again because of yoke....no quick change in direction....the inertia is smoothed out....spread over whole path of travel....

Why does excess air lead to lower torque...do you mean there is less fuel in the charge then would be in a conventional...??...if that is what you mean isn't it cancelled out by burning in a smaller space...torque is directly related to the amount of pressure you start out with...if the pressure is the same as conventional...no matter what the charge...torque should be at least the same....

Torque is mostly governed by how much fuel is burnt. Burning in excess air will reduce the torque for a given cylinder size.

Thanks for the critique...needed something to balance my feelings for this engine...<grin>....have tried to keep my enthusiasm out of it...have fun.....Sno2 10:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments added....Sno2 03:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Inertia

Greg-Am confused, as usual. As I understand it, did some research, the vibration you are talking bout is caused by speed change of the piston. In conventional, the max speed of piston occurs somewhere prior to the piston reaching half or a little more up the cylinder. From that point it is slowed down and is brought to a stop at tdc. This occurs in a relatively short period of time, causing the equivalent of a jerk in the direction of piston travel, which leads to a vibration. This jerk must be cancelled out by a jerk in the opposite direction, in some manner, to prevent vibration. This is the balance you are talking about, I think.

In bourke the max speed occurs right after bdc and the piston immediatly starts slowing down at a constant rate, its speed following the curve of a sine wave. It is exactly the same as bring a car to a stop slowly, absorbing the inertia smoothly over a longer period of time, then if you bring the car to a stop quickly, absorbing the inertia over a short period of time. This slowing down smoothly, at a constant rate of speed, brings the piston to a slow stop at tdc. The inertia has been completely absorbed over the full length of piston travel. There has been no quick change of speed that would lead to vibration. For this reason there is no need of a balance weight moving in the opposite direction. I can picture in my head, if the engine was resting on a smooth serface, in the bourke it would smoothly move in the direction of the piston travel. In conventional move would start with a jerk, like it had been hit by a hammer. In bourke almost immediately after the spark fires the opposite piston starts absorbing inertia. There would be a sine wave vibration (can you call a sine wave movement a vibration) at extremely high frequency. No counter weight would be required to absorb inertia. Please help me understand why counter force would be required. Sno2 15:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately your eyeballing of the motion as smooth has led you astray. The accelerations are large, even if the displacement follows a sine wave. Greglocock 00:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Greg...where did you get new info in overview...??

High school physics . Simple Harmonic Motion . Max acceleration occurs at TDC and BDC and is given by (rpm/60*2*pi)^2*stroke/2 Greglocock 00:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How about if calculated values goes in there...then no citation needed...???....will put in and you can take a look at.

Still do not see how volocity matters, as long as is handled smoothly...but lots of things do not see...<grin>...what about the video...there does not seem to be any obvious vibration, nor can you hear any in the sound. I remember trying to adjust an engine that was running rough and my hand bounced all over the place...when he adjust there is no movement of his hand.... can not see any vibration against the backround. Sno2 01:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Be careful where you are directing comments to...

Be careful on which user page you are directing your comments to. I have NOTHING to do with Bose, but since the Intellexual.NET link carry a heavy bias against Bose, it is discouraged, plus it carries an outdated product. Only neutral links are allowed. Period. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 12:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, another threat. So, you cannot show me a wiki policy that says only neutral cites are allowed (because there is no such thing), and you apply a different standard to positive cites to negative ones. Quit with the threats, young man, I get scarier things than you free with my breakfast cereal. Greglocock 23:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Has to be more than one product. Intellexual only talks about 1 Bose Product, and the product Bose no longer makes. Links that scientifically create Bose Products has to be current PLUS it needs to talk about more than 1 Bose Product from an unbiased point-of-view. The webmaster at Intellexual has not updated his page for a long time. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 03:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I guess that English is not your first language? If so I will cut you some slack. Your grammar implies that you make the rules, or that the rules already exist. I have never seen such a requirement on the wiki policy pages. Please point me to it. Greglocock 03:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Good to see that reason has prevailed. I suppose it is too much to hope for an apology for your threats and lies? Greglocock 23:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Hello, your recent edits to Aptera hybrid car have been identified as original research and reverted. Please do not add your personal opinion(s) or unverified claims to Wikipedia. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 17:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Uffnet mess

I alerted admins and requested page protections to try to stop this flood. Feel free to add comments to the talk page to help provide evidence of consensus against inclusion of the link. DMacks 05:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand

Ok, I understand and I apologise. Anyway, I think that maybe the sections on the Ford Falcon article should be shortened, so you read a little and read the rest on the main article. Thanks HarrisonB Speak! 07:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Glad it's sorted. Greglocock 08:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Usenet

I do not understand your actions. Please explain what you were trying to do. To put this in context, a user(s) has been persistently ading a useless link, and somebody semiprotected the page to stop it. Greglocock 12:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Which article is this about? Note that the answer to your question may be in User:DumbBOT/Protection (or maybe not...) Tizio 12:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, OK, it just removes an expired semiprotect notice, not the semiprotect itself. Greglocock 23:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cubing

You have deleted my entry on 'cubing' to the article 'prototype'. Please would you explain why you have done this. This term and the concept behind it is in common usage among the specialist firms who work for the big car manufacturers in Germany. It is, therefore, not a new term. It just ain't in Wikipedia and I strongly believe that it should be. I hope that you will either explain what I have to do to make the change acceptable or accept my entry and reinstate it. Many thanks for your kind help - user gregpalmerx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gregpalmerx (talk • contribs) 07:12, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, I've worked in product development in the automotive industry for 29 years and never heard the term. Also (but not why I deleted it), your explanation was appalling (but that is fixable). If it is a term in common use by English speaking engineers then whack it back in with a reference, and we'll sort it out. Greglocock 07:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I had a look around and it seems to be a term that seems to be a neologism to me, and what it describes is unremarkable. Still, I'll undo my change. Greglocock 08:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Welll, I left it a few days and having read the definition of neologism I zapped it again. Greglocock 04:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Bose link

UKP has spawned a new debate at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Bose_and_the_intellexual_web_page. His debate tactic in general is to make enormous dumps of text in response to every single comment in a discussion, and to spread debate across a large number of pages. Following this will be difficult and I thought I'd let you know that he'd opened another front. —ptk✰fgs 22:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ta, I'll watch and wait. Forum shopping might be a useful comment to throw in at some point. I must confess I find the motivation of these creeps is beyond my understanding. also [[2]]. Greglocock 12:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. One wonders whether he's being paid by an advertising firm. —ptk✰fgs 14:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Despite the inconclusive response to his efforts on this, he continues to lord over the article and has now basically taken to rejecting virtually all edits that are not his own. Just recently he removed a line on THX that I had added after soliciting comments on the talk page for two weeks. We're now at a point that he's basically reverting most changes that don't present Bose as a wonderful, top of the line, component maker. Think we should make a case of WP:OWN on this? Mattnad (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys I didn't make a comment about this before hand but please Be civil I just don't like being dissed for honest edits or opinions. Please remember Assume good faith, no personal attacks and simple Etiquette. I have never held any ill will to any of you and have thought that our edits have actually improved the article. Mattnad after all you were the one who originally said Not sure the lack of a THX certification qualifies as a fair criticism - after all, there are many great systems without that label. I do not do tactics or try to do anything disingenuous, and Ptkfgs saying that I'm being paid to do this is a real low shot! I was going to comment on that a while ago but I thought that it would look rather aggressive. I always try to do the right thing with my edits on wikipedia and I have found that many people have a rather slanted skew when it comes to Bose. There has to be someone trying to be objective and to try to keep down the POV to make an honest page. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is that you don't make good faith edits, so I will not Assume Good Faith when it comes to you. Quit polluting my talk page UKPhoenix, you are not welcome. Do I make myself clear? Greglocock (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The accusation of Bad faith editing is VERY serious. Bad faith editing is defined as Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. So if you think that I have done vandalism done sockpuppetry or lied you need to bring this up to me or an admin... Other wise please do not say so! Just because you do not agree with another editor does not mean that they don't make good faith edits. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There you are, at it again. YOU are the one who said bad faith, I did not (accusing you of an absence of good faith is not the same as an accusation of bad faith). So you put words into my mouth in order to be able to act indignant, a typical UKP trick (how can I take in good faith a direct attempt to misrepresent what I wrote?). I haven't involved an admin because I look after myself. The reason I don't want you posting on my user page (which you see fit to ignore, much to my amusement) is quite simple. Almost every one of your arguments fills me with loathing. Do you understand? Frankly I would rather step in dog-shit than argue with you, and by and large I'd hit my thumb with a hammer in preference to reading anything you write. Do you understand? I don't want you posting on my talk page. Do you understand? Is that clear enough for you? In order to reduce the complexity of this dialogue, although I don't want to read your boring twisted irrelevant tripe, I will do so, on this page, in the short term, if you insist on posting. But I'd rather you didn't. Greglocock (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No trick you said just above The evidence is that you don't make good faith edits, so I will not Assume Good Faith when it comes to you. So your saying that I don't make good faith edits and I don't make bad faith edits... I think that is contradictory don't you? Just say I make one or the other. These are your words not mine and i cannot help but take what you say as what you mean. If you do not mean that I make bad faith edits then please do not say that The evidence is that you don't make good faith edits. If there is no evidence of this and you do not believe that yourself then please do not accuse me of such a dishonourable thing. I have not tricked you and I have never tried to, please do not say that I have done such a thing or accuse me of something so disingenuous. Please remember Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette as I have done for you and I would like to thank you for not attacking me personally or yourself, I've hit my thumb with a hammer before and it makes it hard to edit wikipedia :-) Read through our past conversations and you will see that I have never held any grudge against you or have talked low about your edits. You might be surprised to read that I have actually agreed with you a couple of times. I have noticed that you have a general disdain for contradictory opinions to yours. And I hope that you will re-read what others have said in your past discussions and see that not everybody has ill intentions. If I am mistaken about that then I apologize, truly I do, but I hope you will realize that I am not out to get you nor to make your life harder here. I just don't want to be falsely accused of something or to have my name run through the mud. So please can we talk like two regular wikipedia editors that are just trying to make this encyclopedia better? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Check out the fallacy of the excluded middle. Then reconsider the discussion. Greglocock (talk) 07:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not following. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I get your point. I chased the THX issue because it was such a small point, and that the crew was blocking it no matter what other editors thought. A matter of principle. Mattnad (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

My point was you did not believe that it was fair criticism so you did not want it in the criticism section but you wanted it in the competitors section instead. It just did not make sense. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

New Kind of Engine

Hi!

I'm contacting you because I saw you have a lot to do with cars end engines. Another engine you might want to discuss: RKM engine, a pistonless rotary engine. See rkm.schapiro.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klpolon (talk • contribs) 06:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

mark

Re: "Inexplicable" link deletion

Regarding the "inexplicable"[3] removal of the alt.folklore.urban link from the Usenet article's "See also" section: WP:ALSO says that you should not include links to nonexistent articles in "See also" sections, and as you can see that article doesn't exist, so that is why Neil removed it. In the future please do not undo the removal of redlinks from "See also" sections, disambiguation articles, or other places where they are generally not allowed. Thank you.  :-) -- HiEv 11:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem with that, I hadn't realised that afu's article had been deleted, whereas highly valuable newsgroups such as alt.fan.warlord and alt.tv.simpsons were still valid links. Also, if you check, I didn't re-undo the deletion the second time once it got a decent description,, so quite why you wrote this smarmy note is beyond me. (Sorry, if you use emoticons you get whacked - that's the rule). Greglocock 12:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kind of crazy that AFU is gone when others aren't, but it was redlinked so you probably should have seen that it was gone when you previewed your undo. I know you didn't undo it the second time it was removed, but I didn't know if that was simply because you didn't know that it had been removed again, so I figured I'd let you know just in case. As for "smarmy", I've found that way too many people get pissed off at any warnings, no matter how valid they are. Because of that I try to handle users with "kid gloves" when writing warnings in an attempt to avoid offending them. It's sad how bad some people are at taking constructive criticism.

P.S.  ;-P  :-D -- HiEv 05:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hoho. 10 points. Yeah, I rarely accept criticism graciously. Man, do I hate emoticons? Greglocock (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)