This non-existent page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Engineering This page is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Engineering. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject Engineering talk page (Discussion page). (January 2010 - December 2010) - Please Do not edit!

The article requires expansion and images if possible. Also, a generic cost benefit analysis between conventional curing techniques and accelerated curing would help. Adityarn (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-01-31T13:38:00.000Z","author":"Adityarn","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Adityarn-2010-01-31T13:38:00.000Z-Accelerated_curing","replies":[]}}-->

The article titled cognate linkages now says:

The theorem states for a given coupler-curve there exist three four-bar linkages, three geared five-bar linkages, and more six-bar linkages which will generate the same path.

I'd like to insert something like this:

The Roberts–Chebyschev theorem, named after ?????? Roberts and Pafnuty Chebyschev, states for a given coupler-curve there exist three four-bar linkages, three geared five-bar linkages, and more six-bar linkages which will generate the same path.

But I am uncertain how to fill in the blank. My guess is Richard Roberts (engineer). But nothing in the article about him mentions this theorem. If he's the right one, then the article about him should link to the cognate linkages article.

It's Samuel Roberts per [1]. Wizard191 (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-01-04T19:46:00.000Z","author":"Wizard191","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Wizard191-2010-01-04T19:46:00.000Z-Roberts\u2013Chebyschev_theorem","replies":[]}}-->

A little cross-wiki-project posting here. I have opened a peer review for the Combustor article over a WP:Aviation. It's a reasonably technical topic, and I'm hoping to get comments from several different groups of editors so that I get a decent feel for how easy the article is to read/understand. Please take a look at the article and leave any comments you may have at the peer review page. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-01-12T20:43:00.000Z","author":"SidewinderX","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-SidewinderX-2010-01-12T20:43:00.000Z-Combustor","replies":["c-SidewinderX-2010-06-30T12:02:00.000Z-SidewinderX-2010-01-12T20:43:00.000Z"]}}-->

Well, didn't get much interest from the WP:ENGINEERING folks last time around, but now the Combustor article is up for an A-class review. I would appreciate it if anyone who has a chance is willing to take a look and leave some thoughts at the review page. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-06-30T12:02:00.000Z","author":"SidewinderX","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-SidewinderX-2010-06-30T12:02:00.000Z-SidewinderX-2010-01-12T20:43:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-01-22T03:15:00.000Z","author":"CBM","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-CBM-2010-01-22T03:15:00.000Z-WP_1.0_bot_announcement","replies":[]}}-->

I recently removed a PROD on List of megaprojects believing the list would easily meet WP:LIST guidelines with some improvements. As such, I beefed up the lead-in to better establish inclusion criteria and the purpose of the list. I also began vetting individual entries to ensure they met the criteria. The vetting includes:

• Ensuring the article subject is indeed a megaproject, removing those that are not.
• Adding a one or two sentence note by each entry explaining what it is--easily adapted from actual article's lead-in, including sources if appropriate.
• Add at least one link in the article back to the Megaproject article. (See B-2 Spirit lead-in paragraph)
• Add a link to the appropriate section in the list in the See Also section of the article. (see Boeing_747#See_also)

As Engineering is not my area of expertise, any assistance that members of the Engineering Project would like to lend in making these improvements to sections of the list they are comfortable with would be appreciated. It is especially important that list entries that don't meet megaproject criteria are removed.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-02-20T18:34:00.000Z","author":"Mike Cline","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mike_Cline-2010-02-20T18:34:00.000Z-Request_for_list_rescue_assistance","replies":[]}}-->

FYI, Category:CNC, CAD, and CAM has been nominated for renaming. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-02-23T06:18:00.000Z","author":"70.29.210.242","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-70.29.210.242-2010-02-23T06:18:00.000Z-Category:CNC,_CAD,_and_CAM","replies":[]}}-->

FYI, several IEEE categories have been nominated for renaming, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 23. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-02-23T06:29:00.000Z","author":"70.29.210.242","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-70.29.210.242-2010-02-23T06:29:00.000Z-IEEE","replies":[]}}-->

Something strange seems to be going on here and it seems clear to me that an earlier version of the article should be restored. However, I have no clue which version that should be, so perhaps somebody who knows more about this subject could have a look. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-02-24T18:33:00.000Z","author":"Crusio","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Crusio-2010-02-24T18:33:00.000Z-X-ray_lithography","replies":[]}}-->

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Engineering/Archive 4/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Engineering/Archive 4/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 01:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-28T01:03:00.000Z","author":"Okip","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Okip-2010-03-28T01:03:00.000Z-Unreferenced_living_people_articles_bot","replies":[]}}-->

I've create a new list of missing engineering-related topics - Skysmith (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-04-08T11:46:00.000Z","author":"Skysmith","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Skysmith-2010-04-08T11:46:00.000Z-Missing_engineering_topics","replies":[]}}-->

As I described here, I want to activate my bot to add the syntax {{Portal|Engineering}} in all the pages that is related to Engineering. In this manner more readers will visit portal:Engineering.

• Do you agree?
• I have to write "engineering" (lower case) or "Engineering" (upper case)?

--Aushulz (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-04-27T12:31:00.000Z","author":"Aushulz","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Aushulz-2010-04-27T12:31:00.000Z-Template:Portal","replies":[]}}-->

Distributed element filter has been nominated as a Featured article candidate. You are welcome to leave comments on its nomination page. SpinningSpark 12:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-03T12:33:00.000Z","author":"Spinningspark","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Spinningspark-2010-05-03T12:33:00.000Z-FAC_nomination","replies":[]}}-->

Should articles on tools be included in this wikiproject? Other than Wikipedia:WikiProject Woodworking and Wikipedia:WikiProject Metalworking, these articles have no wikiproject to oversee their development. Take a look at the articles breaker bar and tie down hardware, for example, and also Category:Fasteners and Category:Tools. Should these articles even have a WikiProject? --Cerebellum (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-06-02T00:46:00.000Z","author":"Cerebellum","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Cerebellum-2010-06-02T00:46:00.000Z-Question_on_project_scope_-_tools?","replies":["c-Wizard191-2010-06-02T00:49:00.000Z-Cerebellum-2010-06-02T00:46:00.000Z"]}}-->

In my opinion, I don't think this WikiProject is the right fit for those articles. I'm not sure there's a really good fit for a project for them. Maybe some of the automotive tools can be under Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles? Wizard191 (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-06-02T00:49:00.000Z","author":"Wizard191","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Wizard191-2010-06-02T00:49:00.000Z-Cerebellum-2010-06-02T00:46:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hello fellow engineers. I'm new to this project, and returning to Wikipedia after dropping out in disgust a few years ago. I am delighted to see the efforts being made by groups like this to improve the quality of Wikipedia's articles.

Is anyone here as frustrated as I am by the lack of good technical information on the current oil disaster? Do you feel like smashing your TV when you watch the news, and see how much ignorance and apathy there is about engineering? CNN has experts on medicine, economics, law, and lots of other fields. Why not engineering?

Anyway, the reason I'm here is to ask for some help in writing an article Offshore oil spill prevention, focused on the technology needed to make offshore drilling safe. This is way outside my area of expertise (circuit design and computer programming), so I see my role as just getting things started, and maybe helping to make sure the article is readable by non-specialists. This is an important article, because it will help answer the question - Can offshore drilling be made safe? I want this to be an article that politicians, reporters, government bureaucrats, and people like myself read when they go looking for an answer to that question.

Anyone here with an interest in this topic is welcome to contribute. A lot of this is just common-sense engineering. Experts in this technology are especially welcome, as I am finding it difficult to locate verifiable sources and avoid the criticism that the article is nothing but personal opinion. This need not take a lot of your time (unless you want to write the article yourself). Just point me in the right direction, and I can do the rest.
--Dave (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-06-11T23:25:00.000Z","author":"Macquigg","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Macquigg-2010-06-11T23:25:00.000Z-Article_on_technology_of_blowout_prevention","replies":[],"displayName":"Dave"}}-->

Failure has been rated by the project as of high-importance while only being a start class article. However, the current article deals almost exclusively with non-engineering related failure. Does it make sense to split the article into Failure (engineering) and Failure, have a section of the Failure article introduce engineering related failure, and then finally write a new article that will deal exclusively with engineering related failure? I think this makes the most sense, since a sizable article about engineering related failure will make the non-engineering material seem out of place and obscuring while the article does maintain, in its current state, a good source of information for people unfamiliar with the various connotations of the word failure (not sure who that would be, but it doesn't mean it's not useful...) Others' thoughts would be beneficial. I plan to begin to update this page, but would like to sort out this matter first. Schmittz (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-07-06T07:40:00.000Z","author":"Schmittz","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Schmittz-2010-07-06T07:40:00.000Z-Failure","replies":["c-Charlesreid1-2010-10-13T04:28:00.000Z-Schmittz-2010-07-06T07:40:00.000Z"]}}-->

I see engineering-related failure and related topics as very important, and distinct from non-engineering failure. A discussion of why engineering failures are important, how they happen, how engineers predict failure, etc., are all important and won't fall under the umbrella of the current Failure article. Charlesreid1 (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-10-13T04:28:00.000Z","author":"Charlesreid1","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Charlesreid1-2010-10-13T04:28:00.000Z-Schmittz-2010-07-06T07:40:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

• Moving parts (AfD discussion)

The aforementioned article is listed at AFD. You may have missed it because the discussion page was incorrectly categorized. It's now in Category:AfD debates (Science and technology), though. Please contribute to the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-07-19T14:23:00.000Z","author":"Uncle G","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Uncle_G-2010-07-19T14:23:00.000Z-Articles_listed_at_AFD","replies":[]}}-->

Would this WikiProject like to adopt Diamond grinding? It is a newish article. It has plenty of info but it needs a bit of attention from someone who knows how to write about this sort of thing. Yaris678 (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-07-12T23:34:00.000Z","author":"Yaris678","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Yaris678-2010-07-12T23:34:00.000Z-Diamond_grinding","replies":[]}}-->

There’s a good number of people, e.g. Kww (talk), Tim Vickers (talk), Coren (talk), among many others, who have expressed desire to have me permanently banned from Wikipedia for writing on the subject of the “human molecule”, efforts of which resulted in a one year ban on me, back in 2007. To exemplify one objection, as expressed by Coren earlier this year: “You seem to ignore, Mr Thims, that Wikipedia is not the proper venue to document your novel theories.” The central problem here is that this is not “my novel theory”; but rather the theory dates back over two hundred years, with over ninety different people publishing content on this subject:

• HMS pioneers

There have been at least six books written on the subject, one painting, four aluminum Molecule Man statues (one 100-foot tall), movie mentions, articles, over a dozen videos, many debates, posters, as well as college courses (dating back to 1894) taught utilizing the human molecule perspective as a basis. What seems to be the case is that either: (a) I have been mis-labeled as an editor with aims of self-promotion over that of an editor with a genuine interest in a subject (that very few people write on or know about); or (b) the subject is an anathema to many editors (and as such are using the various bylaws of Wikipedia in their favor to block the subject from Wikipedia)? To give a bit of history of my failed efforts to write neutral overview article on the subject:

What I am looking for, at this point, being that there obviously exists some form admitable of conflict of interest (being that I wrote a history book on the subject of the human molecule in 2008 and that I seem to be one of only three people, including Robert Sterner and James Elser (2000), who have every made an attempt at the calculation of the molecular formula for one person), is for a minimum of about two or three neutral volunteer editors to write up a one page article (or even stub paragraph) on the subject of the “human molecule” (encompassing its derivative terms human atom, social atom, human chemical, human element, etc.), and I will confide my contributions or guidance of the article to the talk page. The topic, to note, is very controversial being that it is at odds with many cherished theories, particularly those of religion as well as many secular theories, such as life, free will, choice, purpose, etc.

My interest in having a Wikipedia article on this subject is so that children, age 15 or younger, will know that there is an alternative viewpoint out there on what it means to be a “human” (in contrast to the dogma of outdated subjects such as religion or other secular philosophies), and that this subject has been tossed around for at least 200-years now. At a minimum I would like to see:

(a) the mention that French philosopher Jean Sales (friend of Voltaire) coined the term in 1789 as follows: "we conclude that there exists a principle of the human body which comes from the great process in which so many millions of atoms of the earth become many millions of human molecules."

(b) the Sterner-Elser 2002 published calculation for the empirical molecular formula for one “human molecule”, as found in their Ecological Stoichiometry textbook, where they define a human (a publication which has been cited over 750-times): ^[1]

${\displaystyle H_{375,000,000}O_{132,000,000}C_{85,700,000}N_{6,430,000}Ca_{1,500,000}P_{1,020,000}S_{206,000}Na_{183,000}\,}$

${\displaystyle K_{177,000}C_{l127,000}Mg_{40,000}Si_{38,600}Fe_{2,680}Zn_{2,110}Cu_{76}I_{14}Mn_{13}F_{13}Cr_{7}Se_{4}Mo_{3}Co_{1}\,}$

It is my view that the ban of this topic from Wikipedia is equivalent to the hysteria that results in acts of book burning of olden days or the inquisitions of Galileo for believing in the work of Copernicus. As Physchim62 (talk) put in on 11 Jun 2010 "It seems like the witch hunt is still on, more than eighteen months after the original events". I would like to think that there are more than myself and Physchim62 amenable to having a short stub article on the subject of the human defined atomically. I will post this help-message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry talk pages. Comments welcome. --Libb Thims (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-08-25T19:28:00.000Z","author":"Libb Thims","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Libb_Thims-2010-08-25T19:28:00.000Z-WP:COI:_volunteers_needed","replies":["c-Libb_Thims-2010-08-27T18:24:00.000Z-Libb_Thims-2010-08-25T19:28:00.000Z"]}}-->

Per suggestion by Kww at the 27 Aug 2010 deletion review, I have initiated an incubator space page: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Human molecule. I will work on developing a cogent acceptable article over the next week or so. Feel free to contribute with objections or suggestions. Thanks. --Libb Thims (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-08-27T18:24:00.000Z","author":"Libb Thims","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Libb_Thims-2010-08-27T18:24:00.000Z-Libb_Thims-2010-08-25T19:28:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hi, Is there a Wikiproject signal processing? I do not see one. The signal processing articles are generally reference free and in need of help, e.g. Quantization (signal processing) has no references whatsoever. Anyway, whoever wants to should probably start a project on that, at least to tie these overlapping articles (with a great deal of redundant text) together. As is the ratio of text to references is really large. History2007 (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-09-17T20:49:00.000Z","author":"History2007","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-History2007-2010-09-17T20:49:00.000Z-Signal_processing","replies":[]}}-->

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Engineering articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-09-19T22:25:00.000Z","author":"SelectionBot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-SelectionBot-2010-09-19T22:25:00.000Z-Engineering_articles_have_been_selected_for_the_Wikipedia_0.8_release","replies":[]}}-->

Please could contributors have a look at my offering for a portal revamp? the page is at User:Samdlacey/sandbox and i would love some feedback. Thanks Sam Lacey (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-10-27T21:57:00.000Z","author":"Samdlacey","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Samdlacey-2010-10-27T21:57:00.000Z-Portal_Revamp","replies":[],"displayName":"Sam Lacey"}}-->

The revamp comment isn't a discussion of the wikiproject page, it's a note concerning the portal page...and as such I think it's more suited to the actual wikiproject page. I'll not move it back to save an argument but I stand by the placement. Do you have any comments on the portal?

Sam Lacey (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-10-28T20:40:00.000Z","author":"Samdlacey","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Samdlacey-2010-10-28T20:40:00.000Z-Moving_the_comments","replies":["c-Wizard191-2010-10-28T20:54:00.000Z-Samdlacey-2010-10-28T20:40:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Sam Lacey"}}-->

This talk page isn't just for talking about the main page, its for talking about any engineering related topic. See the above discussions. Wizard191 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-10-28T20:54:00.000Z","author":"Wizard191","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Wizard191-2010-10-28T20:54:00.000Z-Samdlacey-2010-10-28T20:40:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hi all. I posed a question on the Coandă-1910 talk page which as yet has not been answered and thought that maybe someone here might be able to help. Basically, the Coandă-1910 was an aircraft built to test an experimental propulsion system comprising a rotary fan driven by a 50 hp conventional piston engine, argued as being the first jet engine (but that's another matter). This propulsion system was claimed to have generated approximately 485 lbf thrust with the piston engine running at 1,000 rpm, but it's not known whether this figure was achieved during static tests or while using a test bed at the front of a moving railway locomotive. Considering this was 1910 and that aircraft were typically reaching speeds of around 50 mph, my question is what thrust figure might be generated by a typical aircraft propeller of the day driven by the same 50 hp engine? There might be many variables to consider, and assumptions made to answer the question, but I'd just like to get an idea of how significant (or not) this propulsion system would have been had it not been destroyed in a crash.--TransientVoyager (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-10-31T17:06:00.000Z","author":"TransientVoyager","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-TransientVoyager-2010-10-31T17:06:00.000Z-Coand\u0103-1910_thrust_comparison","replies":[]}}-->

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-11-07T20:45:00.000Z","author":"Svick","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Svick-2010-11-07T20:45:00.000Z-WikiProject_cleanup_listing","replies":[]}}-->

FYI, IEEE Donald G. Fink Prize Paper has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-11-11T08:32:00.000Z","author":"76.66.203.138","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-76.66.203.138-2010-11-11T08:32:00.000Z-IEEE_Donald_G._Fink_Prize_Paper","replies":["c-SchreyP-2010-11-11T10:51:00.000Z-76.66.203.138-2010-11-11T08:32:00.000Z"]}}-->

Thanks 76.66.203.138 for intiating the improvement! Article is improved, copyedited, verified on recipient names and got one more reference. Article is now also moved to IEEE Donald G. Fink Prize Paper Award. I deleted the proposal for deletion and unreferenced template. SchreyP (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-11-11T10:51:00.000Z","author":"SchreyP","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-SchreyP-2010-11-11T10:51:00.000Z-76.66.203.138-2010-11-11T08:32:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

I would appreciate some input here regarding the perennial issue of the Main Branches of Engineering. Many thanks. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 09:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-12-28T09:22:00.000Z","author":"Dr.K.","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dr.K.-2010-12-28T09:22:00.000Z-Perennial_debates","replies":[]}}-->