User talk:Murray Langton
- 1 You're welcome
- 2 Tent
- 3 Cabin tent
- 4 Tent retailers
- 5 Flight planning
- 6 Georgette Heyer
- 7 Bicycle gearing
- 8 re: spellings
- 9 Georgette Heyer
- 10 Re: Flight planning removal of 'Trivia'
- 11 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
- 12 Cedric Armstrong
- 13 Jump PC relative
- 14 odf and oc
- 15 flying and aviation
- 16 Fiona Stanley - good catch!
- 17 Indendent
- 18 Your summary request
- 19 File copyright problem with File:PhotoMurrayLangton.JPG
- 20 camping
- 21 Bicycle gearing
- 22 Suez Canal Inquiry
- 23 Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.
- 24 Nomination of Bicycle Shaped Object for deletion
- 25 Disambiguation link notification for May 20
- 26 Re: Tent
- 27 Rollbacker
Hi Murray, great to meet you. Keep up the bike riding! ;) I've got a couple of kids too, but they're knee-high to a grasshopper. They love camping, even in the backyard. Anyway, I've added some initial thoughts to the tent talk page about your suggested rewrite - basically, go for it and happy to support along the way :) Jtneill - Talk 11:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's one. I can make a diagram of one if you wish, to match my pictures of the dome tent and dining fly. I've watchlisted your talk page; you can reply right here. --Smack (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Smack. 'Cabin tent' is not something you see in UK or Europe, The nearest equivalent would be a frame tent, except that usually has the frame inside the tent rather than outside. Murray Langton 21:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- It would very much help to have either diagrams or (copyright free) pictures of almost every type of tent. Murray Langton 06:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- One query. Is a 'cabin tent a single skin or double skin tent? My impression from the link you helpfully supplied is that it is only single skin, with a divider to make two rooms. Murray Langton 06:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm really out of my expertise here, but I would be surprised if placing the frame inside would disqualify a tent as a cabin tent.
- I haven't seen any double-wall cabin tents. Weight, one of the main reasons for double-walling, is not very important for them, because they're not very portable anyway.
- I can try to make more diagrams, but I'm afraid that, for some of the more complex types, they won't be very good. --Smack (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Cabin tents here in the USA are the kind of tent used by car campers, people packing everything in a car or truck and basically camping right by your parked vehicle, like commercial campgrounds and those in state and federal parks, where there's a parking lot quite nearby. They are not made lightweight like a backpacking tent, generally speaking. Often they do have a (sometimes movable or removable) center divider to make 2 rooms. User:Pedant 00:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
As a new tent retailer has been added to the Tent article, I find myself wondering why we need the retailers links at all-- surely there are enough images of tents in the links to the manufacturers that we don't need the retailers' links? -- Mwanner | Talk 13:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Mwanner, if you think that the manufacturers links cover (nearly) all of the tent types mentioned then we could certainly remove the retailers links (I'm on the other side of the world from my home right now, using a rather slow dial-up connection, so I haven't been following things as closely as normal.) Murray Langton 22:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I have done a bit of spell checking and minor copy editing on your Flight planning article. It is, I think, very well written, though it would benefit from a few diagrams. I will try to keep coming back to it from time to time-- it's a lot to take on at one bite if one is unfamiliar with the subject.
One section you might want to try to work on: Flight planning#Calculation is written in how-to language after the first sentence. I realise this is a natural form for this section, but it really ought to be made descriptive, instead.
- Thanks Mwanner for your swift response and helpful comments. Murray Langton 13:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your note. The intro looks better, but I rewrote it, as you'll see. (Changes like "There are two safety-critical aspects of flight planning: the first is the fuel calculation to ensure that the aircraft can fly to the destination without any risk of running out of fuel" becomes "Flight planning involves two safety-critical aspects: fuel calculation, to ensure the aircraft can reach its destination safely..."). So I cut down the wordiness a little. Second, the introduction should really reflect the organization of the rest of the article, so as it stands, the intro we have suggests the article will deal with (1) fuel calculation (2) air traffic control, and (3) historical development of flight planning. Is that what you intend? Kaisershatner 14:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Kaisershatner for your revision. For (3), what I really wanted was to emphasise the existence of computerised flight planning systems, and how much more scope they give compared with hand calculations. Murray Langton 14:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Murray. The flight plan page is nice. I was wondering if you'd be interested expanding on the context of when to use kilograms instead of gallons (or pounds for that matter). I'm not sure if UK gallons is related to this issue, though I suspect it is.
I have started looking at your flight planning page and made some talking points on your discussion pages. Depending on how in-depth you want to get, it can be expanded pretty heavily. I am currently building a compiler for flight planning systems to use. I'm testing it out on my company's flight planning system now. It's intended to be used by amateur and professional alike. I will probably write about it for submission to SIGPLAN later this year. So, I am familiar with many aspects of flight planning and would be glad to help contribute to the page where possible.Intrepidwerx (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's not actually 'my' flight planning page, even though I wrote most of it. In accordance with Wikipedia policy, anyone can edit it, though I do appreciate you making suggestions on the discussion page - if you see an obvious small/simple change, go ahead and make it directly; others have done so in the past and most such changes have been improvements. Certainly, it is a good idea to discauss any major changes first. I'll consider your suggestions later today. Murray Langton (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic that you're going to start working on the Heyer novels in depth - at the very least I promise to follow you around proof-reading, should it be required. --JennyRad 14:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have copies of about 2/3 of Heyer's books (my brother has almost all of them). From previous experience with other articles some proof reading will almost certainly be required. Thanks in advance. Murray Langton 20:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, man! I find the mph values very uncomfortable and the table wasn't even that hard to do. I'm researching into recumbent bikes in desire to build one myself and these gearing tables might be useful. Although I'm thinking about a jackshaft under the seat to 1.5x the cadence, to acquire higher speeds. I want a compact LWB with USS, streamlined and all-weather 8)) MiShogun 15:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your thoughts about my proposed post. I think I'll sit on it for a while though, in case someone else replies. Have a great day, — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 15:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I saw that you linked to the Georgette Heyer page so I thought you might be a good person to ask a question or two, I hope you don't mind me bothering you! I'm a relatively new user, although I've been around without an account for ages, and I'm interested in removing the red wikilinks from Georgette Heyer's page, mainly the ones linking to her historical romances- I own almost all of them and have read them countless times. I did create Black Sheep but I don't think it's great. I was wondering whether you had any tips on the best style/layout/content for pages on her novels? Thankyou very much for your help. Farosdaughter 22:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: Flight planning removal of 'Trivia'
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
I am trying to reach you and can't think of any other way than to add this section to your page.
Hope you remember me from London in 1972 and my wedding that you attended.
Jump PC relative
My point, perhaps not clear, was that using JumpEQ confused two different concepts
- Using a PC relative address, e.g. PC+offset
- Using a conditional test, e.g. if EQ.
But I do agree that the notion of addressing modes has many conflicting and interacting notions.
Also with newer processors (OK I'm showing my age) and memory mapping, an address has become a short cut for 'an address translated by descriptor table(s)'. So my addr1 and your addr1 may have the same value but point to different physical places. Worse yet addr1 may be different from addr2, but actually be aliased to the same place. OK my brain hurts. I try to leave this to compiler writers etc. Jupiter258 (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
odf and oc
Hello! Please open a title on the ODF talk page about your template and explain it in a few words, just like your template says. Naming the parties you mean would be helpful as well. Thanks! --grin ✎ 10:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
flying and aviation
Hey there Murray. I saw that you have made a lot of contributions to aviation-related articles on Wikipedia, specifically on the Flight Planning article. I'm a very new private pilot (got my certificate Apr 4th, 2010) who has started an aviation wiki because I could not find a single place to find and discover information about flying/aviation. I'm looking to start building a community to develop the content.. right now it's in *very* early stages, but feel free to check it out and edit however you like- we'll see how it shapes up. It's located at http://www.av8rs.org.
- While I did contribute a major portion of the Flight planning article, I should perhaps point out that I am a computer programmer, not a pilot, so my practical knowledge of aviation is rather small. As I mentioned in my requests for peer review, I work for a major commercial flight planning provider. My firm provides flight plans for airlines, so I know little if anything about the flight planning process for private pilots. Murray Langton (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Fiona Stanley - good catch!
Your summary request
Hi! We are not all time millionaries. I often make voluntary work here correcting for example spelling error. For example, I correct noraml, to normal, which means deleting one character and inserting another one. I hope you don't want me to add a 10 characters summary for a two character correction... No need to reply, thanks!Mazarin07 (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:PhotoMurrayLangton.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:PhotoMurrayLangton.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
Your addition to the definition of the term "camping" has been tagged as requiring a source since soon after you added it. Since it is in the lead of the article, it would look much better if we could resolve this issue. Rmhermen (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for tidying up the terminology. I'm planning further changes to this article, but I'll try and keep to the 'standard'. Murray Langton (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
link to article outlining cost/benefit analysis of cycle helmets: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1368064
How many gears
How many gears does a bike really need? Some references:
"How many gears do I need? Are more gears better?
- The ever-increasing number of gears on bikes is mostly marketing hype. For the most part, all the extra gears are useless. My childhood bike had just 10 gears. Then bikes went to 15 gears. Then 18. Then 21. Now we're at 27. Do you really need that many gears? No. What you really need is a good range of gears. You need gears that are low enough for going up tough hills, and gears that are high enough that you can keep pedaling when going down gentle inclines. If your gear range is good, the number of gears is irrelevant.
- You can't know the gear range of a bike by the number of gears it has. It's true that a bike with more gears often has a wider range than one with fewer gears, but not always, and even if it does, you don't necessarily need the widest gear-range possible. You just need enough of a range. (Think of it like this: There's no use in buying a car that goes 250 mph, because you're not allowed to drive that fast. More isn't necessarily better.) The only way to tell what the gear range of a bike is like is to take it on a test ride, going up the hardest hill you'll be going up in the future, and going as fast as you care to down a gentle incline.
- In fact, if your area is relatively flat, you might not need gears at all. Or you might be able to get by with as little as three. As I write this, I'm in Osaka, Japan, where most bikes, including mine, have just three gears. The low gear isn't as low as I'd like for getting up hills, but it's good enough. If I were staying here longer, I'd get a bike shop to make the lower gear lower.
- Yes, you can do that. If you've already got a bike and you're not happy with the gear range, you don't have to get a whole new bike. A bike shop can change either the front or rear rings (usually the front) to give you a higher range.
- I hope this helps, and have fun with your gearing!"
- The particular demand of the bicycle rider determines the demand on the gear shifting system. Taken from table 1 and table 2 the lowest and highest gear is determined. The result is a necessary total gear ratio transmission of 500%. And if you accept only gear steps lower than 15%, a bicycle drive of 14-gears is resulting from this demand. If you are satisfied with lower total gear ratio transmission of e.g. 350% and larger gear steps are acceptable, eight or nine gears might be sufficient. With lower demands the necessary number of gears lessens."
"How Many Gears?
- Assuming that we have decided on a high of 100 and a low of 20, now comes the hard step. How many gears are needed between 20 and 100? I experimented with a good variety of cogsets and chainrings, the cogsets from 14-21 to 14-36. What I discovered was that a 10% change between these gears seemed the most natural. In fact, my son's bike was set up with a 12% change, my touring bike with a 10% change, and my around town bike with an 8% change, so I have had lots of time to test these assumptions. Here's what happens: if the gear range is too wide, I'm wanting to shift gears when no gear is available, and when the gear range is too narrow, I tend to skip over them. The perfect gear change seems to me to be 10% while my son prefers his wider setup. I am sure that anything wider than 16% would be too wide.
- So, just having a lot of gears or even an even progression of gears is not what I want. I want a 10% change, or close to it, from bottom to top. Let me show you what a perfect set of gears would be, starting from the bottom, based on 10%:
- 20 22 24 27 29 32 35 39 43 47 52 57 63 69 76 84 92 101
- And here's a second set of perfect gears based on 12%:
- 20 22 25 28 31 35 39 44 50 55 62 70 80 87 98
- Of course, due to the small number of teeth on cogs and chainrings, this perfect set of gears can only be approximated."
- Discussion forum, not usable as reference directly, but general trend of comments is that lots of gears are for specialised situations.
- Discussion forum, not usable as reference directly, but general trend of comments is that lots of gears are for specialised situations.
- Individual blog, possibly not usable as reference directly.
- "More gears is an example of 'feature creep'."
- "I tell people that you need a low enough gear to climb what you want to climb, a high enough gear to go as fast as you want and enough gears in between that you don't feel that something is really missing. For some people, that's just one gear! Others will be happy with a three speed. Or a bike with seven gears in the back and three up front. And I'm sure there are some folks who really need a bike that goes to eleven. Maybe pro racers or the guys in Spinal Tap."
Gear shifting advice:
What follows is just a few notes to myself regarding references for 'gearing efficiency' and related matters.
Full text of which above is a summary is in:
- chains get up to 98.6% efficiency
- big sprockets are better
- in a dirt-free lab and using new chains, lubrication has no obvious effect
- slight chain angles ahve little measurable effect on efficiency
"The mechanical efficiency of bicycle derailleur and hub-gear transmissions"
This reports on efficiency tests for a variety of hub gear systems and a few derailleur gear systems.
Claim from shaft-drive producer for 92%-94% efficiency.
This study http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169814197001042 suggests that a 4-speed gearing system is optimal. Power levels quoted (40/80/120 watts) probably apply to causual rather than racing cyclists.
This small-scale study http://members.shaw.ca/bicyclescience/drivetrain.PDF compares efficiency for single speed, 3-speed hub, 3-speed derailleur. Results similar to other reports.
This article http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1460-2687.1999.00012.x/full confirms that larger sprockets are more efficient.
Here is a link to the Rohloff and Greb article (power input 400 watt): http colon //graham.hopto.org/bike/gear_efficiency_report.pdf but "graham.hopto.org" is on WIkipedias's blacklist
Link http://users.frii.com/katana/biketext.html indicates that around 10 to 12 mph is the cutoff between frictional power loss and resistance due to air, latter goes up as cube of the speed.
Found link http://www.hupi.org/HParchive/PDF/hp55/hp55p11-15.pdf to replace the blacklisted one above.
Also, link http://www.hupi.org/HParchive/PDF/ appears to have entire archive of Human Pwoer Journal, which needs to be looked through for useful articles, but many of the links are dead - further web searching needed.
Ranking of various hub gears (range, even steps): http://hubstripping.wordpress.com/internal-gear-hub-review/
Comparing Rolhoff with 27-speed derailleurs: http://www.rohloff.de/en/technology/speedhub/efficiency_measurement/
Typical power output, desirable gear steps: http://www.rohloff.de/en/technology/speedhub/gear_shift_comparison/index.html
Shaft-drive claims for efficiency (by manufacturer): http://www.sussex.com.tw/se5-1.htm
Maximum efficiency at relatively low cadence, also differences according to age: http://www.scribd.com/doc/40845349/Different-Effect-of-Cadaence-on-Cycling-Efficiency-Between-Young-and-Adults
Relative energy costs, including food productino and cyclist metabolic efficiency: http://www.ebikes.ca/sustainability/Ebike_Energy.pdf
At lower power, efficiency tends to decrease as cadence increases: http://www2.bsn.de/Cycling/articles/cadence.html
Reported to be some info re tyre efficiency in Bicycle Quarterly Autumn 2006 issue. This is the Vol. 5 No. 1 issue from http://www.bicyclequarterly.com but note that some observers remarked that the results are doubtful.
See also: http://www.livestrong.com/article/365089-the-proper-psi-for-bicycle-tires/ for notes re tyre pressures, and: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tires.html for general notes on tyres and tubes, and: http://www.bikequarterly.com/images/TireDrop.pdf for tyre pressure/load relationship.
Quoting 15% for losses: http://users.frii.com/katana/biketext.html
Rolling resistance of bicycle tyres: http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/rolres.html
Suez Canal Inquiry
May I inquire why you reverted my edit of a comment, "this is not correct" on the Suez Canal article without explanation on the talk page? I have no desire to engage in an edit/revert battle, and perhaps I'm mistaken, but I believe that the adding of editorial comments to an article is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. If the information given is incorrect, fixing or removing it seems to me to be the more constructive action to take. Carmaskid (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Whoops, sorry. I was trying to revert the edits by 18.104.22.168 and accidentally reverted your edit at the same time. Murray Langton (talk) 07:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.
Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis, currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.
I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.
Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)
PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.
UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
|Research Participation Barnstar|
|For your participation in the survey for Anonymity and conformity on the internet. Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)|
Nomination of Bicycle Shaped Object for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicycle Shaped Object (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gear inches, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cadence (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.
Hi Murray! You reverted my edit to Tent suggesting possible link spam. On the contrary, the old version linked to Gazebo which is about the permanent structure, rather than to portable gazebo (redirect: Pop up canopy) which is about the temporary one (which is what is depicted in both of those pictures). In Australia they are misleadingly (perhaps) referred to as gazebos, though that is a misnomer given that term (everywhere else) is reserved for the permanent garden/park structure. But you'll see from that article itself, the term "pop-up" is not synonymous with "self-erecting" (though to us Australians and you Brits that is certainly what it means). Several titles for the same thing in various countries/cultures redirect to that article.
The second of those two changes was to remove an obvious reference to someone's business that they had managed to sneak in. The second link to the same article isn't necessary, it's only that I've just added that very image to the Pop up canopy article and thought the link might be worthwhile. Would appreciate your thoughts and perhaps your reconsideration of the revert. Cheers, Stalwart111 21:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've undone your undo just to show you the better links referred to above. If you still strongly disagree, feel free to revert again (I certainly won't consider it edit-warring), I just thought it would be a quick way of showing you what I meant. Having looked again, it would seem there is a distinction to be made between the American's "pop-up canopy" and everyone-else's "portable gazebo". In Australia, a pop-up tent (we rarely use the term "canopy" unless talking about aircraft or trees, like you Poms) is something you literally thrown on the ground (or on the sand at the beach) and it self-erects into a small one-person sun shelter. A portable gazebo is rather heavier, comes in a large bag and has the classic scissor-motion aluminium frame (like the two depicted in the article, tent). Hope that's making more sense? Stalwart111 22:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. 17:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)– Gilliam (talk)