Talk:Cupola furnace

[Untitled]

Removed entire section that was not a discussion, but instead a disertation on a software program; the inclusion of which made for a poor substitution of a talk page to discuss cupola furnaces. Mfields1 (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History section tagged

The statement "evidents suggests that this technique was in use in China as far back as the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC" invites the request for the editor to present the evidence, in the form of a reference. It would make a good addition to the article. When the evidence is precented the tag can be removed. There needs to be a reference to the other statement in the Histry section too.Mfields1 (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a reference. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

This edit has been reverted, reinstate: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cupola_furnace&oldid=401610070 91.182.217.92 (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs citations. You can't just baldly assert that the thermal efficiency is 30% without showing a citation. It needs more careful composition - "tree" instead of "three" and others. It's doubtfully accurate - a cupola furnace is not used for smelting. And so on. Any one thing is fixable, but the total contribution had too many exceptions to be usable as it was. -Wtshymanski (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference (book: Beste beschikbare technieken), but I didn't include the reference on each section of the article. The smelting furnace line was pretty much the only thing I added which hadn't been stated in the book, but given that it's a furnace, and there aren't many types of these, I assumed that it was a smelting or melting furnace. I'll fix the spelling errors upon reinstatement. If I leave out the smelting part, can I reinstate it, or are there still other things that have to be adressed ?

91.182.226.145 (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even know what the difference is, do you? How do you _possibly_ expect to contribute in any way other than sheer vandalism when you're happy to simply copy and past sections around because the words look a bit similar?

I'm also tired of your ability to log in to an account. I know it's not a requirement, but it looks far too much as if you're simply dodging about to make it difficult for people to track what you're up to and fix it afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reference: ^[1] 87.59.125.180 (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional useful reference: ^[2].87.59.125.180 (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Some ironfounding cupola furnaces in Asia and Europe. Poster for ArchaeoMetallurgy Conference: Joint conference in honour of Dr Gerry McDonnell and the HMS Research in Progress Meeting, University of Bradford, 10-12 November, 2009. donwagner.dk/Bradford.pdf.
^ Some ironfounding cupola furnaces in Asia and Europe. Poster for ArchaeoMetallurgy Conference: Joint conference in honour of Dr Gerry McDonnell and the HMS Research in Progress Meeting, University of Bradford, 10-12 November, 2009. donwagner.dk/Bradford.pdf

[1] Some ironfounding cupola furnaces in Asia and Europe. Poster for ArchaeoMetallurgy Conference: Joint conference in honour of Dr Gerry McDonnell and the HMS Research in Progress Meeting, University of Bradford, 10-12 November, 2009. donwagner.dk/Bradford.pdf.

[2] Some ironfounding cupola furnaces in Asia and Europe. Poster for ArchaeoMetallurgy Conference: Joint conference in honour of Dr Gerry McDonnell and the HMS Research in Progress Meeting, University of Bradford, 10-12 November, 2009. donwagner.dk/Bradford.pdf

[1]

[2]