Jump to content

Talk:AI Mark VIII radar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Referencing

[edit]

Some minor problems with the referencing:

  • fn 7: Is Brown 1999 supposed to be Brown 1991?
  • fn 44: What is Watson 2009?
  • fn 82: What is White II?
  • fn 85: What is Jones 1987?

Great article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of these have been addressed, even though I admit to not remember doing so... Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also: The first paragraphs of "GL sideline" and "Mk. VIIIA in service" could use references. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Maury Markowitz asked me to take a look at this article as he's considering nominating it at FAC. I'll leave comments below. Maury, you asked for general and organizational comments, rather than the nit-picky sorts of details that are often picked up at FAC, but I think it's actually easier for me to list everything I see, so this will include both any nit-picks and more general comments. I've reread the AI Mk. IV article a couple of times to refresh my memory; that's a fine piece of work.

  • "remained in use by most airborne radars well into the 1980s, as by 1995 electronically scanning active phased array radar began to be used": I don't think this has the intended sense. I assume the intended meaning is that the technology was replaced by phased array radar. If it doesn't mean that then I don't know what it means. It's confusing for two reasons: why is the new technology dated 1995, but the replacement began in the 1980s? And the phrase "as by" implies causality in the wrong direction -- it seems to say that the use of phased array radar caused the earlier technology to remain in use.
Yes that was rather confusing wasn't it - it was added by another editor apparently involved in some name dropping. Certainly doesn't belong here!
  • "antennas have to be about as long": this is directly contradicted by the comment about half-wave dipoles, so I think a more accurate phrase is needed -- I assume this is essentially the same issue as stimulating a harmonic on a vibrating string?
I have added a minimal amount of text here, but I think it nixes the problem. One problem remains though: I have yet to find a single source that clearly states this overall concept in spite of looking over dozens of books. Either you find nothing but formulas, or they fail to mention it entirely. Very frustrating because it's so completely fundamental to radar applications.
I don't think this quite does it. According to our article on dipole antennas, "the most common form is the half-wave dipole, in which each of the two rod elements is approximately 1/4 wavelength long, so the whole antenna is a half-wavelength long"; doesn't this mean that the statement "antennas have to be about as long as the wavelength of the radio signal" is incorrect? They can be half that length, right? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "causing it to ring for a time": can "ring" be linked to anything?
Indeed, bad choice of words. Here's an example where using the technical term definitely improves things.
  • "Considering that the nose of an aircraft could hold a radar antenna about 30 inches (76 cm) across, this demanded a wavelength of 10 cm (~3 GHz)": I don't follow this.
I think I've improved this, let me know.
  • "The first E1189 would travel to the US as part of the Tizard Mission in August, where it caused confusion as Bowen had the blueprints for the original six-chamber version": I know from the other article that Bowen was on the Tizard Mission, but this should be clarified for readers who aren't aware of that. As far as the reader knows, Bowen is still on the AI team in August.
Fixed! Actually, maybe this should all be moved to a later section?
Maybe; I think it works here, though. However, now it's not clear who the "he" in "He then joined the Tizard Mission" refers to -- Watt or Bowen? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "instead of an aircraft the team demonstrated the system by detecting the returns from a tin sheet": the AI Mk. IV article makes it clear that this was done because no aircraft were passing, a point which might as well be made here too.
Indeed.
  • Also, the Mk. IV article says the sheet was aluminium, not tin; which is correct? And it should probably be "aluminium", not "aluminum", given the British subject matter.
This turns out to be an ongoing issue... I've added a note.
I thought it might be something like that. I don't think you mean "euphemism", though, do you? He's not bowdlerizing; he's just using a generic term. How about saying something like "he may have merely meant that it was a metal, such as tin"? Interestingly, the online Merriam Webster at m-w.com gives this generic sense as a secondary meaning for tin, and specifically mentions aluminium as one of the metals that may be referred to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if this is important, but "Micropup" is capitalized in the Mk. IV article, but not capitalized here.
This too! I find both versions in the literature. I'm going with upper-case for now.
  • "new micropup developments which had now reached 25 cm": I think this needs a couple more words for those readers who won't get the elision here; something like "which by now were able to work with wavelengths as low as 25 cm".
Fixed.
  • I'm curious to know why the Micropup development was continued -- wasn't 25 cm simply not good enough? Or was it thought it could be further improved? And was its performance really sufficiently good in comparison with the cavity magnetron that it was worth pursuing? Ah, I see the note about the Army's interest in using it for gun laying. Was this the reason? It doesn't sound like it; it sounds like it was a separate project to the GEC one.
I think it was simply bureaucratic inertia. I also think no one was really sure the 10 cm set would actually work, so they kept both going. There's actually little in the literature mentioning their efforts, it's always in passing along the lines of "oh yeah, and there was GEC too..."
  • No citation for last sentence of first paragraph under "GL sideline".
Fixed, same page.
  • "Lovell's primary issue was developing a conical scanning system": not sure what "issue" means here: does it mean that it was the primary task he was working on? Or the primary problem with the radar, in his eyes? I think it's the former. Was this work that he was redirected to by Rowe because of the new GL focus?
Try now :-)
  • Is there a date for Ludlow-Hewitt's visit? Without that, the relation of the 6 November and 25 November dates to the two week deadline isn't clear.
Took me a bit to find it, but yet it is mentioned directly.
  • In the third paragraph of "Scanning", can we give the reason the "then-current" solution did not work?
Indeed, I worded that poorly.
Tweaked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the mention of the conical solution I immediately wondered if Lovell was working on something similar for GL, since you say above he was working on a conical scanning system. Are these the same technical solution? Lovell was still part of the AI group, so did one solution lead to the other?
Ahhh, this is a bit of confusing terminology, the two are not the same thing at all. One is spinning the scanning reflector, the other just the dipole. The former scans out perhaps 45 degrees to each side, the later only perhaps 5 degrees. The confusion is apparently "scanning out a conical area", so I've changed that.
  • A side comment: there is a good deal of chronological overlap (for perfectly good reasons) in the accounts of the Mk. IV and the Mk. VIII. I think a separate article on the AI group itself, organized chronologically rather than strictly by project, would be a good companion article.
Working on it. :-) I'll be expanding the AI radar article to cover this all.
  • "attempting to generate very short pulses to power to feed the magnetron": should this be "of power"?
Indeed. This is precisely why I asked you to do this review, I would have never caught that in a million years.
  • "the engineer in charge of the workshop was reluctant to do so": can we say why?
Not much more I'm afraid, Lovell seems to be suggesting it was concern about disrupting the flow of construction, but now I can't find it. I'll keep looking, consider this one still open.
  • I've changed "fit" to "fitted" in past tense senses in a couple of places, but the usage is frequent enough to make me wonder if "fit" is standard military usage, instead of "fitted".
  • The caption for the X7579 says it achieved the first kill, but the text only says the plane was damaged.
Hmmm. White's wording is confusing, and his table at the end of the book doesn't list it at all. I'll have to assume "damaged" and changed the caption to fit.
Looks like you missed out a word in the caption -- it now says "the first successful for the microwave radar system". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The abbreviation "FIU" should be accompanied by the spelled-out version on first mention.
Fixed, and linked to it's article.
  • What's the relevance of the mentions of the FIU's reorganization in the first two paragraphs of "Mk. VII into service"? There's no indication that any organizational changes had an impact on the AI development or testing.
Ahhh, try it now.
  • "a switch that changed the pulse repetition frequency from 2,500 Hz to 930, stretching the maximum range to 100 miles (160 km) (it takes 93 milliseconds for light to travel 100 miles and back)": I don't follow this. What's the relationship between 930 Hz and the 93 millisecond delay?
    Looking over this, I just realized the arithmetic has to be wrong too. Light takes about 1.07 milliseconds to travel 200 miles. Did you mean microseconds? That would be closer, but still quite a bit off. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just plain wrong, I've fixed this...
Still not quite right -- should be .536 milliseconds, not 536 milliseconds. Then the reciprocal you want is 1/1.07, because you need the total round-trip time, unless I'm missing something. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "passed to the FUI" -- typo for FIU?

"""Yup.

  • "but as this possibility no longer seemed likely and site seemed to be available": looks like an incompletely edited sentence.
Fixed.
  • Suggest mentioning Gaunt's name at the first use of "headmaster" instead of the second.
And some general cleanup of this para.
  • First paragraph of "Mk. VIIIA in service" is uncited.
Fixed.
  • The sequence of events in the second paragraph of "Mk. VIIIA in service" is confusing. The mention of early 1943 is followed by a description of events all of which took place in 1942 or January 1943.
See if that helps - all of this was taking place in early 1943.
  • "by rapidly introducing new aircraft like the Beaufighter VI" -- which presumably were fast enough to take on the Fw 190s? If that's right, I think it's worth saying so.
  • Why wasn't the Beaufighter VI a "convincing" response to the Jabo problem?
Not fast enough. Mentioned.
  • You use italics for words like "thimble" (with reference to the radome); I think it's more usual to use quotes in situations like this. If you prefer italics I'd suggest leaving it and we can see if anyone comments at FAC, but I think most readers will expect quotes instead.
The rule I was quoted was quotes for nicknames and italics for technical terms. That said, I'm sure someone will say the exact opposite, which is why I went directly you first.
Well, I'm not really a MoS expert, so I'll strike this; as you say, someone will call it out at FAC if necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When then FW's returned": "When the"?
Yup.
  • In cases where the caption to a picture makes statements not cited in the text, I'd put a citation in the caption.
Instances?
  • "the sorts of loss exchange ratio numbers": I think it would be better to explicitly say this was a higher ratio. Perhaps "a higher loss exchange ratio than the Luftwaffe had ever achieved against the RAF".
Indeed.
  • The section "In action against the V-1" doesn't make any mention of the use of radar, and in fact it seems that the flames of the V-1 were the main way the pilots tracked the missiles. The quote from Rawnsley is terrific, but does it really belong here? Was the radar a significant part of the defence against the V-1?
It was not significant, but it was used. The problem for the pilots was that it was basically impossible to tell the range to the target, a flame looks pretty much the same at 3 miles as 1, but only one of those is useful. The radar operator is thus important for telling the pilot when to open fire. I think it does indicate this in the current version well enough?
  • Can we have a link for KG 3 or KG 53? And for X-band and S-band?
indeed.
  • "a Mk. VIII that adapted the spiral-scan technique instead of helical": should this be "adopted"?
Yes.
  • "the X-band concept was dropped as remaining on the S-band would allow existing beacons to be used, as well as the RAF having familiarity with the equipment": the last part of this is a bit clumsy. How about something like "to be used, and also because the RAF were already familiar with the S-band equipment"?
Fixed.
  • "Window" is sometimes upper case and sometimes lower case.
No longer. That said, I'm not sure lower case is "correct", but I'll go with that for now.
  • Both Edwards and Downing are first mentioned as if we already knew who they are; can we get an introductory phrase for each of them? Similarly, who are Burcham, Ward, J. Atkinson, and W.C. Cooper?
As best as I could...
All look good except Edwards -- you missed an earlier reference to him. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the sources say anything about the reason for the friendly fire incident? Poor communication, bad planning, bad luck?
Nothing, they just report it as-is with the slightest suggestion of the pilots being rather green. I strongly suspect that there was an investigation that answers this, but that will have to wait for another day.
  • Perhaps I missed this, but do you link anywhere to an article about the development and deployment of window?
Just to the chaff article, which does cover it to a degree.
  • "an analogue computer to calculate lead": does lead refer to the need to lead a moving target when firing? If so, is there a suitable link?
Correct, added.
  • What wavelength was the Mk. IX developed on after Cooper's memo? 3 cm or 9 cm?
9, added.
I don't see the edit -- what am I missing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph starting "During February 1948" is uncited; there's a cite at the end of the quote, which is probably the right one, but it would be clearer to put it at the end of the paragraph prior to the blockquote as well.
Fixed.
  • The article says the introduction of the Tu-4 led to efforts to improve the UK radar and develop a fighter that could respond to it. This baffled me, as the USSR was by this time an ally, but I assume the thinking was that the USSR was a potential foe and the Tu-4 was hence a threat that needed to be countered. If that's correct, I think something to that effect should be in the article, perhaps as a footnote.
Ahhh, a missing date in there.
  • "an adaptation of the Mk. IX system had also been tested aboard Motor Gun Boats in 1942 and found they would successfully track other boats": how about "it had been found that they would successfully track other boats", since it was presumably not Lovell who found this.
Done.
  • First paragraph of "Equipment layout" is uncited.
Fixed.
  • The description in File:AI Mk. VIIIB radar console CH16606.jpg says there were hinges that allowed the receiver unit to fold back under the indicator unit on the Mosquitos; the article says "the time base circuitry was mounted on rails that allowed it to be slid up and forward". These don't sound like different descriptions of the same thing. Were there two designs?
I'm not sure... those are two different bits of kit, so it's possible the answer is "both". I'm just quoting the text in this case though.
  • The "Displays and interpretation" section switches from past tense to present and then back to past tense again. I think present tense is OK if there are still working versions of the system, but some consistency is needed, and it might be easier to be consistent by using past tense throughout. An example of confusion within a single sentence is "the dish was facing to the sides when the beam first struck the ground, then continues rotating until it is pointed down".
I changed this all to past... but does that ruin it for other sections?
I think it's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'known simply as "altitude ring"' -- might be better as 'known simply as the "altitude ring"'
Definitely.
  • "was quoted to produce good returns": not sure what "quoted" means here.
Fixed.
  • In note j, you say additional research is required. I see why you say it, but it seems like an editorial comment, and I wonder if the whole note is your own analysis? It certainly makes sense to me, but do you have a source that makes these comments?
It is a warning to the reader. Yes, it is editorial, but one that I think leaving out suggests something that might not be true. This is why I put it in the notes, I use this section to draw further attention to details that might change because they are not stated specifically in existing references but may be logically concluded.
Good enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-- I've completed my comments; I'll leave a note for Maury. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AI Mk. VIII radar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AI_Mark_VIII_radar&oldid=1197147498"