User talk:Wolfkeeper.html



Werdnabot automatically archives sections on this page that are older than 15 days. The age of a section is determined by its most recent timestamp (sections without a timestamp will not be archived). All archived sections are listed here, by size. When an archive reaches 256 kB, a new one is created. The current archive is Archive 1. A list of all archives is here.

References

Plug/ED nozzles

Hi Wolfkeeper, I've been looking through the links you posted regarding advanced nozzles. I'm thinking that the people at Aerospaceweb.org have put rather confusing facts online. Even the diagrams they have refer specifically to an E-D nozzle and a Spike nozzle. While they call the thing at the centre of an ED nozzle a 'plug', it is more specifically refered to as a Centrebody or Pintle.

You seem to have been keeping the nozzle section coherent for quite a while so I hope we can clear any confusion there seems to be over this subject.

I can give some references if you like. For instance: http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1998/PV1998_3522.pdf. This is from: "Flow phenomena in advanced rocket nozzles - The plug nozzle" Hagemann, G., DLR, Hardthausen, Germany; Immich, H., Daimler-Benz Aerospace, Space Infrastructure, Ottobrunn, Germany; Terhardt, M., Daimler-Benz Aerospace, Space Infrastructure, Ottobrunn, Germany AIAA-1998-3522

It seems you too noticed this issue back in 2005 and mentioned it on the Plug Nozzle discussion site.

Get back to me with what you think please.--RedHotIceCube (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So far as I can tell the nomenclature is confused at best, but I have found a reference that NASA consider them to be the same, which I added to the article. I looked at your pdf, but it was not helpful.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree there does seem to be some inconsiderate use of the term. I've found a couple research papers that should clarify things...

"Recent Developments in Rocket Nozzle Configuration", G. Rao 1961, National Engineering Science Co. Pasadena Ca. states that "Instead of locating the throat of the rocket motor at the outer diameter, as in the case of a plug nozzle, a compact combustion chamber with the throat section annulus located close to the nozzle centreline can be constructed. In this case, the exhaust gases issue forth from the throat in an outward direction... and expand around the shoulder of the central plug. The nozzle wall contour in the form of a shroud would turn the expanding exhaust gases in a nearly axial direction. This type of nozzle is denoted the Expansion-Deflection or E-D type."

A more recent text: "Experimental Measurements of an Expansion Deflection Nozzle in Open Wake Mode", N.Taylor and T. Sato of Bristol University and Waseda University respectively, 2007. "The Expansion Deflection nozzle... as in the case in a Plug or Aerospike nozzle, the supersonic exhaust flow within the nozzle is bounded by fluid at approximately atmospheric pressure (the main difference between an ED and the more commonly investigated Plug is that the boundary is internal, rather than external)..."

This should explain the position taken by researchers in the field.--RedHotIceCube (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you haven't yet responded to the above comments so I'm thinking you agree. I'll update the plug nozzle and advanced nozzle sections to reflect the idea that plug nozzles and E-D nozzles are seperate ideas. If you still disagree let me know.--RedHotIceCube (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. I don't see that there is any kind of general agreement that there is a difference between ED and plug nozzles, and even if there is, you haven't done the work to show that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. There is this definition from Sutton and Biblarz, Rocket Propulsion Elements 7th Ed. "The plug nozzle or aerospike nozzle has an annular doughnut-shaped chamber ...around a common plug or spike. The outside aerodynamic boundary of the gas flow in the divergent section of the nozzle is the interface between the hot gas and the ambient air; there is no outer wall as in a conical or bell-shaped nozzle. As the external or ambient pressure is reduced during the ascending flight, this gas boundary expands outwards, causes a change in pressure distribution on the central spike, and allows an automatic and continuous altitude compensation. The aerospike contour with the minimum losses turns out to be very long, similar in length to an optimum bell nozzle.

In the expansion-deflection nozzle the flow from the chamber is directed radially outward away from the nozzle axis. The flow is turned on a curved contour diverging nozzle wall." http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LQbDOxg3XZcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=rocket+propulsion&ei=wlEhScL4EYywkwSVv5SCDw#PPA84,M1--RedHotIceCube (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And from the Journal of Propulsion and Power Vol.14 No.5, "Advanced Rocket Nozzles" by Hagemann et al.: "In contrast to plug nozzles, however, the expansion process is controlled from the inside for E-D nozzles." Let me know if these sources are insufficient.--RedHotIceCube (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wolfkeeper. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Wolfkeeper. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Wolfkeeper. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Unsourced Vaporub section.

Very true on the "kill the unsourced at any time"... but the vapo-cure editor seems VERY committed to keeping the section in the article. I hoped that putting a much shorter statement in with a "citation" flag would draw the editor into some kind of compromise, or even a good source. I confess I am sorry to see it deleted... as I fear the longwinded version will be restored yet again. All the best! :) sinneed (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a problem. If they're anonymous, then eventually the article will be semiprotected. If they're not anonymous, then sooner or later their account will be blocked. Or they can reference it. Either way, the wikipedia doesn't lose, unlike when unreferenced and possibly completely wrong material is included.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have been editing far longer and far more than I... I'll defer to your experience. Thanks. :) sinneed (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Jet engine performance

I just ran into the Jet engine performance article, and needed a GPS to get out! It was created about 2 year ago by an editor who has since ceased using WP (at least on that username). I've just spent the last 2 hours trying to clean up some GE turbofan articles, as he was unable to cite his sources. the performance article seems typical of his work, having no sources whatsoever. Even after two years, no one else has added any sources either. It also seems far too technical and involved for an encyclopedia. Do you think this is salvageable (near-term, not two more years from now), or should we ADF it an put it out of its misery? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be better placed in wikiversity, although I actually quite like it, the guy obviously knows his stuff. Shame there's no references though.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:LaunchLoop.GIF listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:LaunchLoop.GIF, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGa^talk 03:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Glamour (presentation)

I have looked over your issue on the disambiguation page with User:ChildofMidnight and I agree that your assessment of the redirect name is correct. That said, do not removed someone's tag for a third opinion. You don't own the article, and someone else has the right to hear an unbiased opinion, not your own opinion twice. Trusilver 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I simply removed it because User:HelloAnnyong had already done her 3rd opinion thing and had removed it from the list on the 3rd opinion page. I wouldn't have responded to the 3rd opinion comment on the talk page, but I didn't realise it was an official process until after Annyong popped up and I'd already commented. I'd never seen this policy in operation, so I read the checklist, and noticed that there was a step on the checklist that she was supposed to have followed to remove it, but it didn't look like she'd noticed it was on the article page, it was just a simple clerical thing, so I marked it minor. I just don't OWN articles, never have, never gonna.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Notice of impending FAC

I'm planning to nominate Gerard K. O'Neill at WP:FAC in the next couple of days. Because you were a significant contributor to the article, I thought I would let you know in case you had any last minute comments or concerns. Wronkiew (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Glamour

I've addressed the multiple issues on the talk page. And I don't think the multiple issues have anything to do with it being a stub, to be honest... Richard Hock (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)