User talk:Mikiemike

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please see my response to your comment at Talk:Seasonal energy efficiency ratio[edit]

Please see my response to your recent comment at Talk:Seasonal energy efficiency ratio and I hope that it clarifies why your simple formula was deleted from Seasonal energy efficiency ratio a few days ago. Regards, mbeychok 04:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mikiemike, I stand corrected and I apologise. I must have suffered a brain fart. I have added your simpler equation back into the article's lead-in section ... using the same styles as the other equations. Thanks for correcting me, mbeychok 18:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

mbeychok, Hey, that's okay. I was just trying to get it right. Mikiemike 19:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Thermodynamic_cycles changes[edit]

You did some changes on [1].
Are you sure that Regenerative cycle, Rankine cycle, Kalina cycle are not phase change cycles?
e.g. Rankine cycle Quote: "...Process 1-2: The high pressure liquid enters a boiler where it is heated at constant pressure by an external heat source to become a saturated vapor...". Liquid and vapor are two different phases, as far as I know.
--Glenn 05:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Compress, pressurize. As you yourself say, water is "virtually incompressible". It is this virtuality that means that water can be compressed. Indeed, you cannot increase the pressure on something without decreasing its volume. This compressibility is itself vital for some processes, such as water hammer. The bottom left hand section of the t-v diagram is known as the compressed liquid water region. Thus compressed and pressurized are intimately linked by cause (pressurize) and effect (reduction in volume). Donebythesecondlaw (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we don't want to put the cart before the horse, but yes, you are absolutely right, and you make a good point; pressure and volume are "conjugate variables" in all expressions of energy. In the context of the Rankine cycle though, AFAIK, the convention in thermodynamic analysis is to characterize the cycle in terms of pressure. I mean, we say the condensate pump is there to raise the boiler pressure. Right? Also, in the article, the Rankine cycle was being compared to the Carnot cycle, and the big difference between these "compression" processes, is that liquid Rankine fluid is nearly incompressible compared to gaseous Carnot fluid. Right? Technically, it is called a "compression process", but the liquid volume barely changes at all, so IMHO, pressurization is a more apt description.

Anyway, I just added some related material to the intro of the water hammer article; see what you think of it.
Thanks, --Mikiemike (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine. I had a go at the water hammer entry. The equations were 'unhelpful' (I think the remaining ones on energy are also a bit of a red herring). It needs more work, but I don't have the right books to hand. Donebythesecondlaw (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Stoddard engine[edit]

How did you find/discover the Stoddard engine. I am curious because I have never heard about it before.
--Glenn 19:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Heard about it on a blog. Mikiemike 03:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

One Stroke ??[edit]

Since you are working on thermodynamic chart..Do you have any idea what one stroke cycle is...??...have heard bourke engine referred to as this, however think most people consider it a two stroke...Sno2 03:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. Mikiemike 03:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Am going to take it out...maybe someone will put back and can find out what is.... have fun...Sno2 03:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Found it....Stirling can push and pull at same stroke...Sno2 04:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Is a turbine not an engine?[edit]

Just seen your edit to the introductory paragraph of the steam engine article. I would like to know why you consider that a steam turbine is not an "engine" in the broadest sense of the term.--John of Paris (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A turbine is a heat engine, but why say "steam engine" when you can say "steam turbine"? It's more precise and that seems to be the lingo, AFAIK.
Mikiemike (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)--

Yes it does seem to be the lingo, but when you are talking about working principles and taking into account history, the turbine easily falls into the general category of rotary engines as opposed to purely reciprocating engines and reciprocating rotative engines. As for "heat engine" a gas turbine engine can be described as such, but not a hydraulic turbine and I would argue, nor can a steam turbine. The "heat engine/steam engine" debate goes back to Newcomen's day when from the outset theoreticians referred to his invention as a "fire engine" whereas in 1719 you already find a drawing by practical man entitled "steam engine". The difficulty as I see it is that with any steam power plant you are dealing with two, often interchangeable, basic components: the steam generator and the "engine proper". The latter, whatever its working principle can be driven in isolation with "cold" fluids such as water and compressed air (often the case of museum specimens), so to me the engine part of a steam power plant is not a heat engine as such but a pressure-differential engine. The reason why heat is important in a steam engine is to maintain the working fluid above a minimum temperature; I am aware that this POV is dated and not in the mainstream, which is why I avoid try to impose it on the WP community, but all the same I have never found a reason to reject it. Moreover I have great difficulty with the term "external combustion engine" which contrary to what you imply in the article is not a generally accepted term, or if so, very recently so. I have yet to find it in any dictionary of any kind, whereas "internal combustion" — no problem. All that said, I have to say that your latest contribution to the Steam engine introduction has improved it immeasurably. This article was an indescribable mess when I first visited it at the end of 2006. I have made some attempts to clean it up (mostly correction of historical errors) but it has proved a hopeless task; it really needs an complete rewrite which I think would probably entail splitting it up.--John of Paris (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm glad I could help, and that you generally approve. I am an engineer, and that is the terminology I try to use. In instances where this is a problem, I simply preface with "In engineering, ...".

I think heat energy creates the pressure energy which in turn creates the mechanical energy.

I thought "external combustion engine" was generally accepted, but I suppose I can check on that at some point. Personally, I prefer "external heat engine" to "external combustion engine", but that's just a phrase I independently made-up. If that happens to be the best language, then frankly, I don't have a problem using it, and I don't need permission from a dictionary! You don't have to be Shakespeare to make-up words, although it helps. Anyway, there are many many widely accepted engineering words that should be used in reference to technical subjects, and sometimes they can't be avoided, even though the spell checker will reject them because they're not in its dictionary. I need an engineering e-dictionary.

Mikiemike (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)--

Nice to discuss this with someone who does not want to "polemick" straight away. That said you will always have the advantage over me as I can only describe myself as a "frustrated engineer" and that goes back to secondary school when I found myself streamed into the Arts whereas my bent was towards the Sciences - but put away your handkerchief, I know plenty of frustrated artists amongst the engineering community. Whilst agreeing with your comment about Shakespeare, I am not so much quibbling over choice of words as suggesting that a subject may be approached from alternative simultaneous angles. For instance, if rather than speaking of “external combustion” I were to come up with a term like "separate combustion", how would you react to that? A Stirling engine where heat is directly applied to the outside of one of the two cylinders can certainly be considered an external combustion or an external heat engine, but steam plant of all kinds is notl the same thing at all. It demands that the hot working fluid be generated independently in one dedicated component and be transferred to a motor component (reciprocating or rotary, it makes no odds). It is interesting in passing to note that the motor unit does not require a heat source to work, but can be made to turn by "cold" fluids such as compressed air or the flow of a liquid, sufficient proof for me to consider that the component in question is a pressure-differential engine and not a heat engine per se. It is of course necessary to maintain steam temperature in order to retain the expansive properties of the working fluid, but what actually acts upon the piston or rotor is pressure of an expanding working fluid - but not heat - that has done its main job already in making the steam. No matter how closely steam generation and power delivery are integrated into one compact ensemble, they remain separate but symbiotic processes and this is what I think is at present being lost sight of by today's engineering and theoretical physics communities; thus when dealing with steam power, we are not talking about an “engine” in the sense of a self contained power unit in the way we talk about internal (or external) combustion engine but of an integrated power group of which an engine is a separate but dependent component. The problem today as I see it is that steam power is more and more viewed with an IC mindset, and this leads to some incredibly confused thinking and to the extraordinary wild statements you can see all over WP whenever there is question of steam appliances of whatever sort and of whatever period in history.--John of Paris (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you wrote: >if rather than speaking of “external combustion” I were to come up with a term like "separate combustion", how would you react to that?

True. In a way, that's more accurate. I suppose the point of reference is the working fluid, which is always "internal". However that implication was dropped from the title such a long time ago, that I had to think about it for a minute to realize what it should be. In hindsight, it's implicit, so it gets dropped for the sake of brevity, and consequently goes unmentioned to the very people who need to hear it!  :-( Anyway, it's interesting that because a combustion process always has an input of air or oxygen and an output of deoxygenated combustion products, it must always be open cycle, and it's always "vented" *externally*. However, there's no reason why one couldn't build a burner on the inside of a Stirling engine, or steam engine. In that case, it would be an "internal combustion" of sorts, and I suppose that's the point you're making. Hmmmm...

I think I understand the root distinction, but it's not easy to articulate that in just 2 words, and still have a ring to it. "Separate combustion" may be the best so far.

>...consider that the component in question is a pressure-differential engine and not a heat engine per se

Well the most general definition of an "engine" is a device which converts energy from one form to another. So a "heat engine" converts heat energy into mechanical energy (and sometimes then into electrical energy). Clearly a heat engine would not run without the existence of a temperature difference across it, and the second law of thermodynamics says this must be so, and that there are no perpetual motion machines. To take a process from the Rankine cycle, namely isobaric heat addition, heat boils liquid to create vapor and this sustains the pressure used by the turbine.

When you say 'pressure-differential engine', I think of a pneumatic air-tool. Pressure energy is technically classified as mechanical energy, so while energy is in fact being "transferred", technically energy is not being "converted" from one form to another. So that is technically not an "engine" according to the thermodynamic definition. It is a pneumatic or hydraulic "motor".

You draw the line anywhere you want, but in this case I happen to agree with the scientific convention. My reason is, the 2nd law applies only to heat energy, and that makes heat energy very different than other forms of energy. Pressure (mechanical potential energy), mechanical kinetic energy, and electrical energy are all more similar to each other than heat energy is. Any one of those can be converted to another with theoretically 100% efficiency. But the 2nd law says that heat can never be converted to the other forms with 100% efficiency, even with a frictionless heat engine. And yet heat is a form which is compatible with many processes, so it often makes sense to use it, even though there is a loss of efficiency.

you wrote: >No matter how closely steam generation and power delivery are integrated into one compact ensemble,
> they remain separate but symbiotic processes and this is what I think is at present being lost sight of
> by today's engineering and theoretical physics communities

Actually not so much, a thermodynamic cycle is characterized by a plot of pressure vs. volume (or temperature vs entropy) so engineers are very aware that the work output equals the volume-integral of pressure.

You may be raising some sort of meta-physical question, which may have some sort of spiritual value, i.e. "the engine runs itself", however it is otherwise rhetorical and intractable, in my humble opinion. As an engineer, I think you're getting caught-up in a loophole. When talking about a system as a whole, it behooves you to look at the system as a whole. In thermodynamics we draw a "control-volume" around the system in question, and look at what crosses that boundary surface. In this case, a lot of high temperature heat goes in, and what comes out is some mechanical work and some low-temperature heat. As engineers we look for the root-causes. Does pressure run the turbine? Yes, absolutely. But heat supports the pressure difference, so ultimately heat runs the turbine.

We better stop this topic before I get upset. :-) So what else is up? Is there anything interesting going on in the area of metaphysics or ontology (for lack of a better word). As far as I know, all the best scientists were into spirituality, including Issac Newton, Albert Einstein, Max Plank, and many more I'm sure. It interests me, though I haven't read much about the topic.

Mikiemike (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC) --

Nothing's "up" and I’m sorry if I risk upsetting you - I've already asked you to put away your Kleenex on my account and in fact am thoroughly enjoying this debate; I feel we are closer to a general agreement than a bust-up, but if you prefer to leave it where it is, that’s OK with me and I’ll stop cluttering up your talk page. I've never been into spirituality or knowingly ventured into metaphysics or ontology; but neither I have ever been one to accept teachings or received wisdom on face value, so am often led to teeter on the brink as it were, whilst doing my best never to lose contact with the nitty-gritty. I've had this sort of debate several times with various WP contributors and have to say that your replies have been by far the most constructive and in good faith I have so far encountered. I think your distinction between an engine and a motor is a crucial point and deserves to be developed, the problem being of course that current usage is by no means so cut and dried; you only have to read the first “disambiguation” line of the Steam engine article to know how far we have to go! Finally if I have started this debate it is precisely because, engineer or frustrated engineer, I have always endeavored to “look at the system as a whole and seek root causes” but have never found that Carnot-based thermodynamics adequately answered my questions. Finally I would be very interested to know in what engineering field you work. Very best wishes, John Wright.--John of Paris (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I was half kidding about you upsetting me, (note the smiley face), although I started to feel the "polemick" arising toward the end there.
Anyway, you're not cluttering the page.
--Mikiemike (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The fluorocarbon work-of-breathing problem[edit]

Is related to viscosity, but there are many different fluorocarbons possible to use in liquid ventilation, and each has its own viscosity. Which figure are you using, and for what? SBHarris 03:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The number's not right, I'll fix it. If you know the viscosity of a breathing fluid can you put it in? The point I wanted to make is that I think the issue is viscosity, not density. Mikiemike (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)--

An Unreasonable Man[edit]

Hi, concerning the article, I didn't write the synopsis, so I don't know what the original editor intended. I've only added the infobox, poster, and a few categories. Looking at the paragraph, I would assume nuclear weapons, but I don't know for sure. Good luck figuring it out! Let me know if you need anything else. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Renewable energy[edit]

Hi, I undid this edit you made because you removed sourced material. If you would like to discuss your objection to it, feel free, but you can't simply remove material by claiming it's dubious. NJGW (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment about the number of links in a disambig entry[edit]

Hi. This discussion that you started on the wikiproject disambiguation talk page should take place on either Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation or Manual of Style as it is not about the project itself -- it's about what has been agreed to in the MOS. Discussion is good, but it should occur in the correct place. Best wishes. -Gwguffey (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good point. Thanks. You can delete the disambig entry if you want.

--Mikiemike (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi--feel free to make constructive, well sourced edits to the Ralph Nader article if you feel there are biases or missing, notable information. If you are considering something extensive, discuss it on the talk page first to get input. Editors would probably be more responsive to this than, as you put it, a "rant" and a request that someone else put what you would like to see in the article. Feel free to give it a shot, with an eye to following Wikipedia guidelines. Cheers, Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Safe driving[edit]

Hey, I think keeping this is dangerous. It says "safety concerns", but the section is written as to show that if you are a skilled driver, there is little danger in trying this "techniques" out. I am all for fuel economy, but those techniques seem suicidal at best. Please read the entire section and note that they carry no citations and that its POV in favor of this driving techniques. Brusegadi (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly a controversial issue, and I believe the article states this, hopefully in neutral language. The article may not express other POV's, so I think you should add to it to help provide a balanced point of view. I don't think it's the right response to swiftly and silently (covertly) delete material just because you don't agree with it, especially without so much as edit summary, let alone a tag, or a mention on the discussion page.
You're right that more citations (references) are needed. This was originally written with references, and it was a mistake to not include them; they do need to be added. But at least tag it before deleting it. I don't recall seeing a tag. The right response is to tag it or add more references, and the right response is not a complete deletion of the entire subcategory that I spent a lot of time writing carefully, because this is obviously an important and relevant issue.
I'll give you an example of why this is controversial, and not a simple issue. Someone gave me the finger the other day while I was driving, because I appeared to be going really slow. I even felt like I was going slow, but I verified numerous times that I was actually going at or even slightly above the speed limit. I was driving this speed because I didn't want to get pulled-over by a cop and ticketed, and I also wanted to safely conserve fuel. In this case, my driving behavior was actually more energy-efficient, more safe and more legal (both in terms of legal speed, and unsafe/reckless driving) than the other driver who was going much faster, tailgating, swerving and looking to pass on a single-lane narrow on/off ramp. I used to drive that section of road much faster, until that particular day when I started paying attention to saving fuel and the posted speed limit. By the way, I went slow after that because I was anticipating a red light, and I was still coasting at the speed limit! That's when the rushed, angered driver accelerated up to the red light, and got to the intersection at the exact same time! As he was braking for the red light, that's when he flipped me off. He probably used twice as much fuel to go the same distance in the same time. My pseudo-hypermiling might actually have made the situation safer! Why do I get the feeling that this happens all the time?! Also, what's the best course of action? What is the best driving behavior? There is no perfect answer, but the article should at least mention this dilemma & controversy. The conflict that occurred was a result of an unusually low speed limit, and the other driver's road rage. I know there's an issue there; this much is obvious. We may disagree on what the issues are, but regardless, the article really needs to address it, whatever the relevant issues may be. Help me hit the nail on the head. Let's get the facts, the references and help dispel the myths.

Mikiemike (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)--

I have explained my self in the talk page of the relevant article. Now, I did not just delete the material, I explained myself. Second, this is not just about a driving technique, it is about a dangerous driving technique that has no citations. We should not be telling people to drive with their engines off, its not just dangerous but as it stands its WP:Fringe. I do not need to tag fringe material, I can just delete it. Finally, if your objective is to save fuel, one accident will erase any carbon savings that you or anyone has had over their lifetime. Brusegadi (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The material has good solid citations, so that is not a basis for deletion. We are not "telling people to drive with their engines off", the Wikipedia article is merely reporting that some professionals use these techniques/behaviors to maximize the vehicles fuel economy. It is absolutely relevant, and it would be dismissive and negligent not to cover it.
This is not fringe material. As the article is currently written, there is a common thread throughout the article, which states that one man named "Wayne Gerdes" coined the term "hypermiling", and got 59 mpg in a Honda Accord. How do you think he got this figure? The verifiable sources state that he known to use the techniques listed, however dangerous or safe you think they might be, and this is key to how he gets extremely high fuel efficiency. This level of fuel efficiency is simply not possible with unmodified production vehicles, unless these techniques are used. I repeat, this is not a "how to" manual, or a DIY guide, it is an encyc article.
I agree with you that Wikipedia shouldn't make dangerous maneuvers appear safe, so we need to report all the facts. It's not necessary to lie or manipulate the facts in order to tell the truth. To be unbiased means not having made your mind up before looking at the credible evidence. If you have credible evidence that says this is unsafe, then by all means, add it.
Explaining what is safe and what isn't is not such a simple issue. A driver with strong arms, is able to safely drive a vehicle without power steering, particularly at low speeds. There was a time not too long ago when vehicles didn't have power steering, and had big (high torque) steering wheels instead. Adding to the article the date when power steering became standard in vehicles is an example of a fact that could shed light on the safety issue. Censoring all material and leaving everyone in the dark is not the right answer. You probably have some good points to make, but I don't see where you've even mentioned informally what you think is unsafe about it. So we still haven't even begun to discuss the issue. Driving does cost lives. Obtaining oil costs lives too. Those are both topics that should be linked to but not written about in the hypermiling article. I'm all for carbon savings, but the article isn't exactly about that either, and it's not mentioned at all (it probably should be mentioned in the intro to explain one motivation for why people do this). I think it would be relevant to mention how much energy is needed to repair or replace a crashed car. We've barely scratched the tip of the iceburg on this issue of safety. I still maintain that the appropriate response is to add more material, not delete what little material there is just because some less-than-bright person could jump to an inaccurate conclusion. Ideally, the article would have a table of data with the relative safety of a maneuver and the amount of fuel it saves. The best would probably be driving slower on the highway, because this greatly increases safety and fuel economy. Trouble is there are so many factors to consider. In the end, the best you can hope to do is explain why a maneuver can be unsafe and then hope that the reader uses that info to maximize their safety. It's not a question of what's safe and what isn't, it's about managing the overall risk, and breaking this down into the relative degree of risk for each maneuver. Anyway we all draw the line slightly differently. I would never cut out my seat belt to save weight, but I imagine some people are crazy enough to do that. What we might try to do is rank all the maneuvers that are in between these two extremes, from most safe to least safe.
Mikiemike (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)--

Heat Pipe[edit]

What do you think about the issue over on Heat Pipe with the article describing a phase change system, while the picture shows a copper wire that CPU tweakers call a heat pipe? Do you think the latter is notable enough for its own article, or should we just cover both types in this one? Gigs (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Which picture, the first one? I think if they are sufficiently different in terms of the article material, then they should each have their own section. If and when the sections get big enough, they can be split off so each has their own page.
Mikiemike (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)--

Stirling engine[edit]

Why did you revert this? --Mikiemike (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if reversion seemed a little curt, but I felt your attempt to clarify had rather the opposite effect and at that time I had neither the time nor the inclination to rework it. It also re-introduced the incorrect catagorisation of the stirling engine as an external combustion engine (it can be but is certainly not neccesarily so, eg Harwell TMD which was powered by embedded radio isotopes (also proposed for Martini artificial heart) and Finkelstein's solar engine which focussed sunlight through a transparent window on to an internal absorber). Of course no wiki effort is ever totally wasted and partly as a result of your attempt, a new and vastly improved intro/summery has emerged!
Unfortunately, the whole article has rather grown like Topsy and the various sections do not hang together well. Plenty of useful work to be done - go to it Mikie but do your research first!

BTW. Don't have a downer on those of us who choose not to register. (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It needs further rewrites to have a WP:NPOV. I've done plenty of research. You don't know you you're talking to man. I authored most of the related articles, including for the Harwell Thermomechanical generator. "External heat engine" may be more acceptable than "external combustion engine". (see above discussion: #Is a turbine not an engine?, and search for "external"). Anyway if you object to that misnomer, then you should object to the "hot air" misnomer. You need to spell check your additions, and you should register or you might be blocked. Please continue the discussion here Talk:Stirling_engine#Introduction_revisions.2C_neutral_terminology --Mikiemike (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mikie.

OK, though I feel this article is currently doing the Stirling engine a disservice, I will not revert your reversion (!) as it appears to be counter-productive, but will continue discussion on talk page as advised.

Re. other matters; I am something of a reluctant contributor with perhaps too little time to study the fineries of the format, I am also painfully aware that my spelling and grammer are not all that they might be (a product of the liberal education system which prevailed in 1960/70's Britain) but the 'bots' seem to tidy up these details and I hope edits will continue to be welcomed from all - registered or not. I have not yet discovered the spell check and would be pleased if you could point me in the right direction. Finally I don't understand your "You don't know you you're talking to (a?) man" comment - I don't believe I was being gender specific in adressing you as Mikie and anyway have no reason to suspect that gender effects technical knowledge or ability. (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You totally misunderstood me. Mikiemike (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

hi , i am sorry if i'm breaking format rules or what have you, i was interested in getting access to your matlab code for stirling engine calculations - thanks jeremy rutman

  • Best way would be to click on the last reference, or join this group: [2] and get it from the files section.Mikiemike (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hot air engine[edit]

Hi there, I tidied up the intro by replacing the limited number of cycles mentioned with a link to the (slightly) more comprehensive selection in the 'thermodynamic cycles' section of the same article. You reverted to what appears to me to be the more clumsy original treatment. I'm sure there is a very good reason, but please clarify the error of my ways so that I will not make the same mistake again. Thanks Pv=mrt (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Butting into your discussion with EdJogg on the use of the the Aeolipile for opening and closing temple doors, I am dumbfounded that you could imagine such a device being used for such uses. I suggest that you access this|[1], read the drawings Hero gives, and exercise your engineering judgement as to what's going on. The door-opening device consists of communicating vases filling and emptying buckets in order to counterbalance weights. You will see that the reference I have just reverted is simply wrong; it doesn't come from the gods. Whilst I agree with you that we are not talking about "toys", for reverts, I am with EdJogg on all the way on this.--John of Paris (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:V states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true. "Verifiability" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." --Mikiemike (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well why won't you go and verify this source at this link I have just given you instead of relying on a library scraping? Thurston is accessible to all discerning Wikipedia readers.--John of Paris (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There's more than one POV, and this should be reflected in the article. This is a more effective way to handle a controversy than to bicker about who's source is better. Just use both POV's and both sources and be done with it. Mikiemike (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Not my POV, just a reference to Hero's POV. No reason to confuse readers with two sources. All you have to do is explain to them how you can open and close a pair of heavy temple doors with an aeolipile.--John of Paris (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I think you missed the point. All an editor has to do is report and include the reference. WP:RS. Primary sources and original research are frowned upon. Mikiemike (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference is valid. All we have to do is make it easily accessible to the intelligent reader. That's is our job as I see it. You will have noticed that Morven went and had a look yesterday. His account completely meets with our approval. Thurston is not a primary source, nor is this original research - it's called verifying facts. As for being frowned upon, well please stop winging, you're making us cry.--John of Paris (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiple sources are better than just one source. When you say: 'No reason to confuse readers with two sources', it sounds like you have no regard for points of view other than your own; actually it sounds like fascism. Understand that what you may consider a "fact" is not necessarily what others may consider a fact.

Mikiemike (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Mikiemike/Opposes death penalty[edit]

Resolved: Nominator withdrew nomination

User:Mikiemike/Opposes death penalty, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mikiemike/Opposes death penalty and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Mikiemike/Opposes death penalty during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 15:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Mfd withdrawn. I screwed up, sorry. I absolutely, 100% agree with you on the death penalty before, during, and after I Mfded it. It's just that I was Mfding the pro-death penalty one so I tried to be NPOV. --Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 18:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad this was sorted. However, the userbox seems to have lost its picture - can this be replaced? It is a useful userbox, which I keep on my user page. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 11:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. Mikiemike (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 16:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Pelton wheel[edit]

Please see last post on the Pelton wheel talk page. Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Current Limiter NPN.PNG missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Current Limiter NPN.PNG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead-acid voltage vs SOC[edit]

Good graph, would love to get some more details....Battery capacity, discharge rate, temp, test methods, source data. Get in contact if you would. (Petebeng (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC))

  • Sorry I never got back to you, and sorry I lost track of the original source. There are numerous sources of similar info on the web. If I find it, i'll try to reference it. Or someone can redo it. thanks. Mikiemike (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Confirmation bias[edit]

Hi. Please see the explanation at Talk:Confirmation bias. Thanks. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Compressed earth block, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aggregate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Methanol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Applejack (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Methanol from biomass[edit]

Hello. In 2010 you added a reaction to the article on methanol, showing how it can be produced from biomass ([3]). But what is the substance with the formula C16H23O11? It doesn't even have an even number of electrons! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

  • You're right, it is not exact. It was an empirical formula intended to approximate "wood", which is a blend of lignin, cellulose, hemicellulose, and water. If you have a better representation, I'd love to see it! Thanks for checking! Mikiemike (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yield photon flux[edit]

Hi, you added data on YPF on Photosynthetically active radiation a while ago. I changed the table into a plot and expanded the explanation. Can you please check that I did so correctly? Your wording and the cited reference did not state explicitly that it the weighting was about "amount of photosynthesis per photon" rather than "amount of photosynthesis per incident unit of energy". Han-Kwang (t) 14:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I didn't check it in detail, but it looks great, thank you for doing that.Mikiemike (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)