User talk:Andy Dingley
2007 2008 October, 2009 April, October, November, December, 2010 January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, 2011 2011 January, 2011 February, 2011 March, 2011 May, 2011 June 2011 * 2012 * 2013 * 2014 * 2015 * 2016 * 2017 * 2018 * 2019 * 2020 * 2021 * 2022 * 2023
Hi, Please do not revert my categories. This category is useless. How are we supposed to find pictures in them? Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Don't attack other editors as vandals: User talk:Headlock0225#Vandalism warning. When called out for doing this, and your misunderstanding pointed out, then discuss it, don't just revert independent editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
File is not an exact duplicate.
[edit]Andy, I noticed the black and white has a piece of the front wheel missing. I agree the other file is not as good quality, however, it has a complete wheel. Please, keep both until a truly "exact duplicate" is uploaded.
Can you revert your duplicate tag? Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, it's probably justified for the book facsimile - although the caption was wrong. I've already swapped them on en:WP to the clearer image (although the use on WP is wrong anyway). Andy Dingley (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Andy. I appreciate your many good works. -- Ooligan (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Roofing by material has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! |
JopkeB (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
|
|
Category:Scammel_Trunker has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! |
Delta 51 (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikidata
[edit]You spoke out about my harassment at Commons but the same person has just moved to Wikidata. As a disinterested third party, can you peek at Wikidata:Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q125118469 and express your own opinion? RAN (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I just noticed your warning from last october in both files. I just wanted to point out that:
- The information, in both cases, has been obtained from the book 'Richard Trevithick, Giant of Steam,' by Anthony Burton, published by Aurum Press in 2000.
- The image File:Engine trevithick puffer.svg is based on the description on pages 59 and 60, where Trevithick's design of a machine is briefly described. As explained, the machine consisted of a small boiler to produce high-pressure steam, which then drove the cylinder. Trevithick disposed of the condenser (the steam escaped directly into the atmosphere, producing a sound that gave the machine the popular name of 'puffer').
- As for File:Engine threvithick plunger pole.svg, it represents a later machine by Trevithick (developed after his stay in Peru), called 'plunger and pole', for which a sketch by Trevithick himself appears on page 159 of the book; the image I uploaded is based on this sketch.
Please, let me know if you have other considerations regarding this. Thank you, MdeVicente (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know that book. But the Amazon blurb, "Richard Trevithick’ s ‘ Cornish engine’ was the world’ s first self-propelled steam vehicle." isn't encouraging.
- I'm not sure what either of these engines are meant to be, but they're not accurate representations of anything. To the point that they're failing to reach COM:SCOPE.
- The first drawing here has some sort of equilibrium valve, linking the two sides of the cylinder, so let's assume that this is the 1811 'first Cornish cycle' engine. An important engine, although there is some inconsistency in the recording of Trevithick's engines in 1811 & 1812 (see Barton's Cornish Beam Engine, and I've not taken the considerable time needed to track this through Farey's Treatise on the Steam Engine). But that's not a Trevithick 'puffer' engine, as Banfield described scaring the bullocks. This engine has an equilibrium valve, therefore it should also have a condenser. The defining aspects of the 'puffer' were high pressure steam and no condensing of the exhaust (the amount of expansion of this steam did vary). A condensing engine doesn't have the loud puffing that was distinctive to Trevithick's engines over Watt's. I know of no Cornish cycle engines (i.e. equilibrium valve) without condensing.
- The second drawing is presumed to be the 'plunger pole' engine of 1812 (Chapter XIX of Francis Trevithick's Life of Richard Trevithick [1]). But what on earth? This seems to be some sort of floating piston steam / water cylinder, driving the pump cylinder by separate hydraulics. Which makes absolutely no sense: there's no historical engine like this, the piston areas and thus relative pressures are wrong for anything to work.
- Most obviously though, what are those boilers? Those are early Watt boilers, for low pressure only. Not anything like Trevithick's higher pressure boilers. Also the arch heads in the first image aren't, they're just a simple chain attachment to a beam, which is not how it was done.
- I'm almost (but not very) curious to see the original images, if these were based on them. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)