User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2010 July

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
← [[../Archive Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".|Archive Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".]] |
Archive {{{1}}}
| [[../Archive Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".|Archive Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".]] →

File:1956 Hungary Soviet flag burn.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:1956 Hungary Soviet flag burn.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--ZooFari 23:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Andy, what about this? It seems to me to be problematic for copyvio, but I'd like to see your comment at the DR before closing it. Regards,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Is it fair to ask why you uploaded it in the first place?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
One applies WP:AGF, but it appears that it might be a mistake to extend it as far as Flickr users. As the other commentator put it, there's value in having such an image of an important historical event, which is why I uploaded it in the first place. However that's a 54 year old image, so it's relatively unlikely to be the Flickr user's own image. They've also uploaded a few others (Stalin's head with the roadsign stuck in it) which are relatively well-known images in published books on the Uprising. As a result, we just can't trust their claim of authority to assign a licence to things. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hydrogen-based domestic energy storage[edit]

Hey Andy, Finished up on 2 new versions of the hydrogen-based domestic energy (new files, since they're now png). Files are not yet present at wikimedia commons, but you can view them

If it suitable enough for wikimedia commons, I'll upload them here aswell, in the other case, I'll spare you the trouble. KVDP (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I would still have serious concerns about these images, for much the same reasons as before.
Is there any use for, need for, or value to having an image of this process? I'm far from convinced. It's not a real or practical process, nor is it likely to be for some time. As such, any diagram of it should focus on the science, not the engineering. The more "engineering" is involved, the less generalised it becomes and the more likely it is to find itself in conflict with some eventual implementation.
True if you only look at the current image which uses hydrogen as energy storage, the main idea however was to also use it as a template for similar setups using other emissionless fuels (which could already be useful today). In this respect I also added the arrows indicating the conditions for the storage of the fuel; the less arrows/lower conditions, the more suitable a fuel is, and these images can thus help in determining the best fuels (atleast to some degree).

KVDP (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As you still seem keen to draw the image despite, then how best to proceed?
  • The process is basically circular - this is after all the whole point of it. So I'd suggest a diagram that's drawn as such. This would highlight the electricity -> gases -> electricity cycle. I don't just mean drawing the branches for the two gases as a circle.
  • There's no need for two diagrams. The first (stored oxygen, fuel cell) is the key to the process and the more likely end-result if this process ever does become workable. Although the use of a fuel-cell is impractical pie-in-the-sky, it might work in the future. Making oxygen, only to throw it away, will never make sense. Nor are IC piston engines a success with hydrogen (Ricardo's biography on the R101 airship engines and possible plans for fueling those with surplus lift gas, instead of venting it, illustrate some of the difficulties).
Yes, but there's something I'm not sure off; ie is it possible to use pure oxigen in a IC-engine ?; the schematics I've seen all use air, and I'm not sure whether the fuel can ignite without the extra gases found in air (my lack of knowledge in chemistry thus presents a hurdle here for me to simplify the 2 diagrams into 1). Thanks for the IC piston engine reference, I'll look at it once I finished up on correcting my images.
...More detailed comments later, after I've had my arm sewn back on...
 :), there's actually no need to give me this much detail (aldough it's appreciated); simply just telling me how I need to improve my images is more then plenty, this will save us some time and muscle fatigue.

KVDP (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

By "have my arm sewn back on", I mean that significant parts of it weren't adequately attached, as they had been shortly before, and now required some surgery. Still 'tis only a flesh wound. Not easy to type one-handed though.
Given your comments, I will not upload the file at commons but keep it at Appropedia for the time being. Perhaps once schematics of the other fuels have been made and if I've found a suitable option to create the circular diagram, I'll reconsider uploading.

KVDP (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The image could be better, and deserves to be. There's no excuse for ugly block diagrams. It takes prior thought and some knowledge to get it right, not huge amounts of extra effort.
  • What do the colours mean? They're lurid and unignorable, so make them either meaningful, or less glaring. They're not even consistent for representing electricity.
Well, I use my own colors to indicate the different purposes for which the parts are used I change my colors depending on the image sometimes, depending on what's most clear. Ie red and blue are used for heating/cooling or hot/cold, light green is for electrical components (ie parts used to control something, ...), dark green is for energy storage parts (ie EC batteries, ...), dark brown/yellow-red ("cupper") are used for mechanical linkages, ... Offcourse none of the coloring is in line with official color schemes, but I'm not sure where the official colors can be found and I guess they change depending on the sector they're used in. Also, it's impossible to always use a uniform coloring as it depends on the image I work on (ie you can't use a same color to mark 2 different things, colors need to be clear enough to distinguish them from each other, ...)
  • There are two tiny arrows near the top. Are these call-outs or representing some flow? I'm not even going to try and read the tiny rotated text with no contrast.
first is high pressuring, second high cooling; they're use to show the requirements that need to be attained to store the fuel
I don't care what these are (a content question), my point is that the diagram is unreadable (a presentation question).
Now that you've told me what they are, I now have to worry about the completely ridiculously unworkable notion of cryogenic storage for the hydrogen. Don't you have any idea how difficult, and how energy inefficient, it is for something as cold as hydrogen? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

At present, I just finished up on the updates for the File:Ship_compartment_purposes.jpg image; I changed it to png and improved on the issues noted in the orignal discussion. I also made the ship a bit nicer (it was ugly fat at the first version). Tell me whether it's already suitable or not for reupload as a new file at wikimedia commons. Image not yet online at commons, but viewable at

KVDP (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Where to start? 8-(
What is this image for? If it's to illustrate bulkheads, then it should show bulkheads. It should not digress into other matters, such as plumbing or propulsion. These are an irrelevance. If this then turns into a polemic for science-fiction engine designs or composting toilets (on a ship?) then that's right out. You do have something of a track record for this - shoe-horning in irrelevances because you seemingly think they're a cute technology, even when they're totally irrelevant and actually harmful to the image in question.
The main thing I made it for is to show the decks. Aldough the initial image made for the ship floodability article already showed most of the compartmentalization, it did not show the decks. For this, a side view was needed, and at present no such image exists at wikimedia commons. Given that I already needed to make a new image showing the side view of a ship, I thought that it was also useful to immediatelly mark/make clear the general placement of the ship components (ie engine, sleeping quarters, galley, ...) If this was to be done using simple coloring of the compartments to show the general sections they are in (and thus not making it too specific) it would not be overkill for the image (it was btw already pretty empty, given that only the decks were shown otherwise). I did not have any good images to base myself on so I simply put in the text to add the coloring later, and kept to just giving some info in the text (originally by immediatelly writing on the image). Now that the text is added to the image description, the text is easy to correct later, and is no longer an annoyance to someone just wanting to see the decks. The coloring is something I still wish to do, but I don't have any good images/references for this, and I'm also still working on correcting other images. If I can get a good reference, I'll get unto to this after I finished with the other images.
The main thing I made it for is to show the decks.
Decks are fairly unimportant - it's the vertical bulkheads that make the difference. There are now some images at Ship floodability that were drawn 70 years ago with a pencil, yet convey the detail that's necessary, at the level that's appropriate, and are even readable at thumbnail sizes. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

After this, I'll get unto the stirling engine images, ... as discussed at

KVDP (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the existing Stirling images, and the ones you've made previously have had serious errors indicative of failing to understand any of the technology behind Stirling engines. Please don't create more like that. We don't need them, it's a waste of people's time to have to wade through and error check everything. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm solving this another way, you won't be bothered with this by me.

KVDP (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC) ┌─────────┘
Further on ship compartmentalization:

  • Ships aren't compartmentalized this way. Warships and passenger vessels have much smaller compartments, for different reasons (damage control and for staterooms). Bulk cargo vessels and container ships have much larger ones. Tankers, of course, have tanks.
  • The line marked "A", waterline, is not the waterline.
  • This profile doesn't exist. Cargo vessels (except car carriers), have a much smaller superstructure way aft. Military vessels have the superstructure amidships. Passenger vessels have the wheelhouse forward and the superstructure more or less the same height throughout.
  • The note on composting toilets is an irrelevance. The weight of urine is inconsequential and ocean going vessels dump it overboard except near land. You place toilets where convenient for passengers and crew, not for design or operational convenience. This comment is typical of your inability to think like an engineer -- I would reason as follows:
A crew member might excrete a kilogram or two a day. A crew of twenty on a cargo ship of 20,000 deadweight tons might, therefore, excrete, 1,000kg on a twenty-five day passage, which would be halfway around the world. Therefore, the maximum imaginable weight of urine would be 1/20,000 of the weight of the cargo. This tells me without any sort of accurate calculation, I don't need to pay any attention to the weight of urine.
small remark: the weight of urine/feces wasn't the issue here, the reason I mention the use of composting toilets is just because feces/urine is generally disposed into the sea/river where it pollutes it, and as a additional problem, nutrients that are otherwise suitable for agriculture get lost. I would think that the weight btw remains the same, given that food, ... needs to be present on the vessel already, so the only thing that happens is that the food is digested and converted into other substances. Perhaps that water urine may built up as extra weight, if it's assumed that water is harvested on the vessel (which is unlikely).

KVDP 17:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  • "Decks above the waterline do not need bulkheads" is nonsense. That line of reasoning is the principal reason the Titanic sank (her bulkheads did not extend high enough and the water gradually worked over them as she went down at the bow).
  • "The deck at the waterline should always be watertight" is also nonsense. There is often no deck at the waterline, because the interior design is not concerned with waterline location and, in cargo vessels, the waterline changes with load. In fact, all decks should, in principle, be equipped to be watertight if required.
  • The placement of sleeping quarters and the galley is for passenger and crew comfort and not to avoid flooding. In passenger ships, crew sleeping quarters and galleys are below the waterline in order to maximize the above waterline volume available for passengers.
  • The engine and machinery space shown is too small -- it might be three to four times this size, in several compartments, in a warship, twice this size and much farther aft in a cargo ship, and also twice as big in a passenger ship.

I say again to you -- doing technical illustration requires understanding what you are illustrating. Andy has been more patient than I, but I liken what you are doing to my translating articles from the German Wikipedia for use on the English Wikipedia. Since I don't read German, they would not be satisfactory. You have, according to your CV, no training in any of the engineering or scientific disciplines and, apparently, little understanding of them. Asking Andy, me, and others to help you improve your drawings is an unreasonable drain on our time. We have other things to do on Commons than help you make drawings that are not, by and large, needed. Although you have produced some useful work, my view is slowly coming around to thinking that you are, on balance, a drain on Commons resources.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, then it appears that this image would also be unsuitable. I'll transfer your text to Appropedia so I can improve the image there (and not upload it at commons).

The only thing that remains is the File:Undershot water wheel schematic.png Aldough the paddles may be still a bit off, I could nonetheless fix most of the major errors if you reinstate it and we would then again have an image for the undershot water wheel, which is coherent to the other images.

Finally, in regards to the draining you of your time, this is an incorrect statement. Everyone works voluntary at wikimedia commons, and I also never asked you to look into/help me with my images. If you don't want to be bothered with my images, then don't look into/help me with my images. Offcourse if you want to remove them otherwise, it is your task as an administrator of commons to assist me in suggesting possible improvements first, but this a wikimedia policy, not my policy, so please don't direct this to me. Perhaps that otherwise, I might too have put up a request for adminship, but sadly I don't feel up to the whole endeavour, due to these requirements. I just want to tidy up after myself, and I don't think you should be annoyed by this, rather see it as something I have to do as a member of commons . You should be rest assured that once I finish all my incorrections, I'll reassess my image uploading to commons, and only upload things I'm certain about that they're correct and couldn't possibly be regarded as own works, ... I'll stick to uploading my own works to Appropedia instead. KVDP 17:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)