User talk:Heron/2006H1

Luton flashover

I have started a section on substation design and protection, and I would value your input on something. It is the Luton flashover and related matters.

The Luton flashover was interesting becuase what happened was that an arc from a HT conductor to earth occured. This short then caused circuit breakers to open becuase of the overcurrent. Too many protection devices were activated and then everything went to pot. The defense against such an overreaction in the event of such a fault which I was told about was that a substation has all 'earthed' metal work isolated from earth except for one cable which passes through a current transformer. If current is detected in the earth cable then the location of the fault is clear to the protection electronics. Hence with good design of the protection systems it is possible to open fewer circuit breakers then it would be otherwise. The problem is that I do not have the references to back up this design concept which I was told about some years ago by a substation expert.Cadmium 21:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You are overestimating my knowledge of electrical engineering, Cadmium. I'm an electronic engineer by training. Although I'm interested in the general principles of power distribution, I know nothing about substation design. You might find something by Googling for "substation earthing site:uk". Good luck :-)

Just to satisfy my curiosity, do you have any links with information about the 'Luton flashover'? I know nothing about it. --Heron 14:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sadly I do not have any links which mention the 'Luton flashover' and the rampant outage which followed it. I think that I have found an interesting topic but like you I am pushing myself to my limits. I think that WP will get better if it has a mixture of articles which are basic interoductions to things which people commonly think about and some articles about advanced topics which will make a person start to think for themselfs. As you know something about the priciples of power systems I think that you might be able to help out on the substation page. I have already added some links to a few web pages which give details of how some of the protection systems (ones which sense the dirrection of a fault) work.Cadmium 15:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll keep an eye on the page and help out where I can. --Heron 20:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

data logger

Nice edit - it really needs categorisation as well - I don't know how to do this tho.

--PeterMarkSmith 01:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone else has helpfully added a category. It's just a matter of adding '[[Category:Measuring instruments]]' to the bottom of the article. --Heron 11:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Citing your article

I'm writing a paper that includes some information about Mylar, which you started the article on. However, I don't think writing "Heron, et al" in my Works Cited would go over too well. What's your actual name?

Zack Green 16:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You should cite Wikipedia, not me. The main reason for this, from my point of view, is that I have no control over any edits made since I started the article. The other reason is that it is an unofficial Wikipedia policy. Please see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia, particularly where it says "You should not cite any particular author or authors for a Wikipedia article, in general.". I think the same goes for any other encyclopedia: you cite the publication, not the authors. We have a page that will generate a citation for you: go to Special:Cite and type in "mylar". --Heron 11:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

National Grid

I was delighted to see your work on Charles Merz and the National Grid. Are you in a position to add any technical detail to the National Grid article on capacity and losses? I personally would like to know what kind of currents flow in the National Grid circuits, and what kind of resistances per mile there are in the transmission lines - it would be great to have this in an encyclopedia. Thanks for your latest contributions! - Crosbiesmith 18:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's always exciting to discover an interesting and important individual who doesn't have an article yet! I don't immediately have the information you are looking for, but I can see that it would be useful, so I will try to find out. --Heron 18:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

History of Science

Please consider joining the proposed History of Science Wikiproject.--ragesoss 00:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. It seems like a good idea, and it includes the history of technology, so I'm in. --Heron 15:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: TeaCake

"Hi. I see that you took the photo of the tea cake (well done), and gave it a caption of "A toasted teacake with tea." That beverage looks more like hot chocolate to me. Would you kindly confirm that it really is tea?" (Heron)

My bad. It is actually a mocha. ;) I will correct it --Intimidated^talk 02:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) --Heron 18:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Genalogical symbols

Howdy... I've just noticed the family tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cold-comfort-farm-genealogy.png) you produced for the movie/book, "Cold Comfort Farm", and I was wondering if you could provide a legend to understand the different symbols and markings. I've begun googling, but have so far come up cold.

~Heptarch

com dot heptarch at genealogy (reversed)

Hi Heptarch. Until now I hadn't noticed that I had used symbols without explaining them. I'll fix this as soon as I can. --Heron 21:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There is now a key to symbols on the image page. --Heron 21:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Grammar (and style) improvements on "English language"

Hi Heron, thanks for the excellent grammatical and stylistic improvements you just did on the article on English language. It makes the article much more pleasant to read. Keep up doing this to other articles that suffer from loss of style, perhaps by contributers that are (just like me) not native English speakers −Woodstone 19:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) --Heron 19:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from turning the English language article into Anglish - this is the English Wikipedia. Thank you. - The Great Gavini ^discussion 19:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I fix grammatical errors. If by doing so I move the style closer to my own variety of English, then that is unintentional but not surprising. I can hardly be expected to make corrections in a dialect other than my own. --Heron 19:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I wrote that reply in ignorance of what 'Anglish' was. I thought that you were accusing me of promoting British English over other dialects, which made me unnecessarily defensive. Now I see what you mean. It's true, I don't like to see obscurantist sesquipedalianisms where simple words will do, but it's not a matter of etymology, it's one of clarity. I assure you that I'm not a linguistic chauvinist. Consider me a disciple of Strunk & White. :-) --Heron 21:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

But why bother changing it? It was fine the first time round. Administrators have been changing so-called "simple words" back to their original form (edits made by anonymous users, however) for quite some time now. I would strongly advise you against doing so, in case they notice you doing it and consider it vandalism. All the best. - The Great Gavini ^discussion 16:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I find the suggestion of vandalism ridiculous. The edit was quite serious and a real improvement. It was not just replacing romance words by germanic ones. It improved precision of formulation, grammar and flow of the text. Please do not let the above criticism stop you from continuing similar work on other articles. −Woodstone

Similar work???? The rest of the articles (over 950,000) on Wikipedia use the "un-improvised" style. And I doubt you improved the article on English language much by using minimum Latinate vocabulary - you actually reworded a quotation according to your "style". A few administators have reverted changes made by people like you (you know, like those who write in Anglish) and if they see you reverting it back, they will most likely see it as vandalism. Either stop the "lexical cleansing" or go ahead and rewrite the other million or so articles in Wikipedia in your style. Thank you. - The Great Gavini ^discussion 17:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Until now, I have been bemused by your criticisms, Gavini. Some of your comments seemed out of proportion to the minor edits that I had made. So, I revisited the article in question and reviewed my edits, trying to find what it was that triggered your complaint. To my surprise, I found that a big heap of changes have been made under my name that are not my work at all. I can only guess that I copied and pasted the wrong text while trying to resolve an edit conflict.

Everything you object to seems to originate from this edit of mine, with the summary "grammar". I own up to most of the edits to the first section, except for changing "occupations" to "jobs", which strikes me as crude. After that, in the following subsections, there are lots more edits that are ugly or ungrammatical, and which I utterly disown. I would never change "an equal number" to "just as much number", or write "millenium" with one "n", or use the non-word "nonwithstanding"; in fact, I remember editing those errors out of the article. There are dozens of other solecisms further down the article that I tried to take out, but the edit history shows me putting them in. The style of those bad edits looks much like that of the contributor before you and me, 70.243.38.185 (talk · contribs).

If you look at any edit I have ever made on Wikipedia except that one, you will find that I do not make errors like those of which you are accusing me. I do not generally replace correct grammar with clumsy or erroneous versions, and I do not go around changing Latin and Greek words to Germanic ones just for the sake of it. I'm sorry that this technical mistake of mine, if that's what it was, has led you to blame the wrong person. If there is anything I have changed, in any other edit besides the disputed one, that you would like to discuss, then I shall be happy to do so. --Heron 21:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Alas, I am mistaken. You were correct about your not committing vandalism (although, regrettably, certain other users have been vandalising), and I looked at your contributions a while ago and saw that they are indeed of exceptional quality. Ah well: I just have to be more careful reverting vandalism in the future. All the best. - The Great Gavini ^discussion 15:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

Don't worry. You weren't to know that my edits had got mixed up with somebody else's. If I had been dealing with those Anglish editors, I would have got just as annoyed as you. Best wishes --Heron 19:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Page name for temperature articles

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 22:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I voted, but I had to add a new candidate. Sorry! --Heron 21:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. As long as we are talking about this on the talk page, that is good. bobblewik 22:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Error in Electro Magnetic Radiation chart Light-wave.png

During the propagation of the Electro-magnetic field the energy is transferred between the electric and the magnetic components of the field. So, the resulting Electro-magnetic vector rotates in space with the propagation of the wave. The two projections of the electromagnetic vector at any moment matches the vector of the Electric field AND the vector of the Magnetic field.

In other words, on the chart Light-wave.png the sinusoid of the Electric field and the sinusoid of the Magnetic field should be shifted relatively by 90 degree in time.

Regards, Boris Spasov, (email address removed)

Thanks Boris. I'll check with some other references. I suspect that no diagram can be a perfect representation of what's actually happening, but perhaps we can do better. --Heron 12:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have checked, and I can't see anything wrong with light-wave.png. Admittedly, it only describes a plane polarised wave. I have found many references that agree with Wikipedia (e.g. Hyperphysics and the NTNU Virtual Physics Laboratory) and only one that agrees with you (play-hookey.com). Our own article on the electromagnetic wave equation and these University of Sheffield notes and these from the University of Tennessee say that in the simple sinusoidal case the E and B fields are in phase. --Heron 13:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Cubic metre

Thank you for moving 'Cubic Meter' to 'Cubic meter' to make it sentence case. It was previously 'Cubic metre'. You said you prefer 'Cubic metre' and you should move it to that spelling in line with Wikipedia policy. I reverted the content but I am not able to move the article itself, but you might be able too.

Please also see my comment about the same user moving 'Square metre' to 'Square Meter' in Talk:Units_of_measurement#Somebody_moved_.27Square_metre.27_to_.27Square_Meter.27._Please_can_somebody_move_it_back.3F. Regards. bobblewik 19:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to move it back to 'metre', but I don't want to provoke an argument. The MoS does seem to be marginally on our side, since the articles originally used the international spelling, but the relevant section also ends with a 'don't worry, be happy' message. For now, I'll just change it to sentence case. --Heron 20:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh well. While I was agonising over the right thing to do, someone else beat me to it. Hooray! --Heron 20:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Removal of Baby Food from Misleading food names.

Heron, could I please ask what is your reason for the removal of the baby food entry to the list of the misleading food names? Surely, the fact that in itself it is called Baby Food means that as a generic product name it is misleading, since it contains no baby... As I cited the external reference for this as a genuine incident, I feel that it belongs on the list if only for historical purposes. Your thoughts would be welcomed. Regards, Thor Malmjursson 12:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Thor's Pet Yack

It's not misleading, because any English speaker knows what dog food, cat food, fish food, pet food, baby food etc. are. Anyway, according to your external reference, the name of the product was not the reason for the confusion; it was the picture of a baby on the label. Therefore, you need to file your example under "Misleading pictures on food labels", not "Misleading food names". --Heron 13:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Blake article

Heron, I'd like to really put some energy into the article on William Blake. You've been contributing for some time and seem to know your way around Blake... I'm relatively new. Any suggestions as to how I can help make that article the best it can be? KristoferM 19:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, first some general points about Wikipedia. Try to be objective, and do not be tempted to add your own opinion of the subject. If you state someone else's opinion, say whose it is. Always give references (the <ref></ref> format described at Wikipedia:Footnotes is really easy). Accept that other people will change your words, and try to work with them. (I think you already understand this.) Start slowly, and try not to undo all the good work that has been done on this article. It is very good as it is, so it does not need radical surgery.

Now for some specific ideas. The article says nothing about Blake's influence on later artists, except for the "Inspired by Blake" section which is merely a list. Perhaps you could research this. Were there any mainstream artists who continued his work after his death, or was he forgotten for a while? Who looked after his prints and manuscripts? At the end of his life he had a group of disciples, the Ancients. Who were they and what happened to them? Blake is widely admired nowadays, so who championed him in the 19th and 20th centuries? Who are his artistic heirs in the 21st century?

This article is quite good on biographical detail, but perhaps there is more to be written on his works. Some of them have their own articles, but others (America: a Prophecy) remain to be written about. The one on Songs of Innocence is very short. Also, some of his characters have articles (Urizen), but some do not or are just stubs (Urthona). There is work to be done there.

That should keep you busy for a few hours :-D Let me know if there's anything you want to discuss. Regards, --Heron 21:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Heron, thanks for the advice... I am finishing my B.A. in English Lit at Rutgers and will be focusing on Early Romantic Literature (emphasis on Blake) in grad school, so the topic is near and dear to my heart. If you spot any other Early Romantic artists that need touching up, let me know on my talk page (which is currently virgin territory). Thanks! KristoferM 04:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Anode / Cathode Polarity confusion

physics discussion of polarity This is a complicated subject with polarity being relative to the voltage measurement points. The only sane way to discuss this subject is in terms of current flow and there is a lot of misunderstanding going around. M-W defining an anode as being positive in the case of a electrolytic cell and negative in the case of a galvanic cell is confusing at best. The electrolytic has an external applied voltage but again, you have to base polarity of the points of measurement. I don't want to start an edit war, I would like to have an accurate, understandable article. Thanks. Jonathan888 (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The anode and cathode are defined in terms of redox (or, equivalently, in terms of electrons entering or leaving). The last time I looked, that is what our articles said, but I'll check again if you're worried about it. --Heron 18:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I've looked at the anode article and left you a message on the talk page. See you there. --Heron 19:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ohm's Law

Hi!

• Just a heads up. I reworked the intro to Ohm's Law for the more general public. Take a peek!

FrankB 22:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Frank, for making the article a bit clearer. I edited some of your contributions to cut down the conversational style. Wikipedia aims for a reasonably formal, but not old-fashioned, style, and personal opinions are definitely out. --Heron 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ohm

There's a vote at Talk:Ohm (unit) to reinstate as the primary topic after a move from Ohm. Have an opinion to share? Femto 16:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I'll have a look. --Heron 18:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Branchlist

Template:Branchlist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Omegatron 14:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll go and have a look. --Heron 19:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Four candles

And it's good night from him. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

And it's goodnight from me. Goodnight! --Heron 22:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

English spelling: fool proof?

Hello, on Dutch Wikipedia there has been some discussion regarding proper English spelling of the word fool(-)proof. To resolve this issue, we require the opinion of an educated native English speaker. Could you please tell me which of the following variants of fool(-)proof you would consider proper, trusting only on your own intuitive, immediate 'feeling':

'Mary-Elizabeth nevertheless managed to destroy the fool proof dishwasher, after melting her foolproof iron and sinking her son's fool-proof boat.'

If you have an opinion about this at all, that is: perhaps such variants all feel acceptable to you. And what about bullet(-)proof, full(-)scale, hawk(-)nosed, brand(-)new, even(-)handed, fail(-)safe? Does the same apply to all? By the way, in which country do you live? Thank you very much for your co-operation, you could reply here or on my User Talk page. Cerberus™ 01:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Cerberus. If I were you, I would consult a dictionary, but if you want to know my opinion, here it is:

foolproof, bullet-proof, full-scale, hawk-nosed, brand new, even-handed, failsafe or fail-safe.

Foolproof is a special case. Writing it as fool-proof gives more emphasis to the word fool, which might imply that you are accusing somebody of foolishness. Removing the hyphen makes the word fool less prominent, and makes it clear that you intend the idiomatic sense of the word, not the literal one.

Sometimes it is necessary to adjust one's spelling to suit the context. For example, in a newspaper one might write fail-safe for the benefit of readers who are not familiar with the term, but in a technical publication one could write failsafe.

I live in the UK. --Heron 09:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

An immediate reply

Hi Heron, probably it's not such a household idiom in Britain, but I listed it as it's only found in British English; as its first recorded use is dated 1839, it's definitely a so-called "Briticism." If British grammars consider it incorrect or objectionable, you can add an appropriate tag. All the best, JackLumber 11:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. My reference calls it 'informal', so I marked it as such. --Heron 11:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

equation template

I replied on my page. Fresheneesz 19:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

again Fresheneesz 01:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar Awarded

Heron is hereby awarded the Original Barnstar for countless quality contributions to Wikipedia over the years Kukini 22:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I went through all your archives and looked through a great deal of your work. I honestly could not find ANY evidence of anyone thanking you for all the great work you do. Thank you. Kukini 22:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thank you, Kukini. I shall treasure it. It certainly put a smile on my face. --Heron 18:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Pareto interpolation

You appear to be the original author of the article titled Pareto interpolation. A number of things in the article did not make sense (see talk:Pareto interpolation) but at the same time, it was clear that there was something worth keeping as an article. I have finally gotten around to working through the math carefully, and it was easy to figure out what must have been meant, and I have re-written the article accordingly. But a problem remains: searches on Google Scholar and the Current Index to Statistics data base failed to turn up any relevant published material. Can you add something like that? Michael Hardy 23:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I wrote that article in the halcyon days before I started worrying about references. You were right: I am a non-statistician, and I was out of my depth when I wrote the article, but I was hoping that someone smart like you would come along and fix it. I have just added a couple of references at the bottom of the article, so I won't repeat the information here. I hope they help you find the information you need. --Heron 19:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Michael Hardy 20:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Savery and Papin

In the Thomas Savery you noted Savery obtained some of his ideas from the work of Denis Papin. Do you have a source for this?

I looked at the Denis Papin article, and at the diagrams it contained. They show a device that clearly works in a very different fashion than Savery's design. Nor does it seem possible that Savery could have ever known of Papin's work, considering he was located in the Midlands and Papin didn't move to London until some time after 1685 -- it appears the first publication of Papin's work wasn't until 1707, post-dating Savery's by some time.

In contrast, Edward Somerset's design that was built at Raglan uses the same operating cycle as Savery's, and differs primarily in having two cylinders instead of one. It long predates either Savery or Papin, and is located not far from Savery. If Savery did copy the design from somewhere, it appears much more plausible he did it from Somerset!

Do you have a source for this claim? Without further information on Papin's patents, or a direct linkage of the two men, I believe this claim is in error.

Maury 17:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Maury. I think my reference was the Britannica, which says:

Using principles adduced by the French physicist Denis Papin and others, Savery patented (1698) a machine consisting of a closed vessel filled with water into which steam...was introduced...

and then,

a few years later, when...Newcomen independently designed his atmospheric-pressure piston engine from another of Papin's ideas, Savery...joined him in its development.

--"Savery, Thomas." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 28 Apr. 2006

but unfortunately it doesn't say how Savery got hold of Papin's ideas. As for Somerset, his claimed invention of the steam engine is by no means proven. The ODNB is generally sceptical, referring to:

the continuing absence of any archaeological or other physical evidence

--Stephen K. Roberts, ‘Somerset, Edward, second marquess of Worcester (d. 1667)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004, accessed 28 April 2006

The only evidence of this invention seems to come from Somerset's reference to a "water commanding engine" in his own catalogue of inventions. The ODNB will admit only that unsuccessful experiments in steam power were carried out on Somerset's estate by a Dutch engineer. --Heron 19:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well given that at least half of the "facts" stated in the Seymore Cray article in Britannica are laughably wrong, I no longer trust anything I read there. That said, it is entirely possible that all of the facts in this case are wrong, and what we are seeing is everyone copying older incorrect facts. I will try to track down your 2004 reference (I don't have access to it), I will try contacting the author.

To start with, this reference claims that the remains of the second engine are still visible in the walls of Raglan Castle -- or at least were in the late 1800's when he wrote it. The diagram shows an engine very similar in concept to Savery's.

It also goes on to describe how a contemporary of Somerset, Samuel Morland, who was apparently familiar with Somerset's first engine at Vauxhaul, designed a number of pumps, including one based on raising a vacuume via gunpowder. A number of his pumps were installed, and he was later invited to the French court to build various designs for Charles. His writings show that he is very familiar with real-world steam pumps, not "paper models" that invariably used incorrect calculations copied from earlier works.

Anyway, the key feature here is the arrangement of the internal parts. Papin's drawing shows a chamber with water on the bottom being pushed out by steam pressure of a piston on top. This is completely different than Savery's design. Unless there is another part of the patent showing a different device using vacuume, I'm inclined to think they're wrong on this.

Maury 13:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't find a definite link between Savery and Papin, so perhaps the Britannica is just repeating old rumours. I'm inclined to agree with your version. The clincher is that Savery's patent didn't have a piston. However, the arguments you give against the Papin-Savery link are not all correct. First, Papin first arrived in England in 1675 [ODNB], worked with Boyle, and demonstrated his 'digester' to the Royal Society in 1679. He was one of the first to do experiments with vacuums, so his ideas may have influenced many of his listeners. Second, I think you were distracted by Papin's second engine of 1707, which was merely a water fountain. His important invention was his first engine of 1690, which was a condensing piston engine, probably the first ever. Unfortunately our copy of his drawing doesn't have a legend, but you can see from the eye on top of the piston rod that it was designed to pull downward, not to push upward. There's a better picture of it here, which makes its operation more obvious. Papin didn't realise the importance of his 1690 invention and instead went down a blind alley, investigating positive pressure engines instead - hence his inefficient and commercially unsuccessful 1707 engine.

This is how I see it (most information from the ODNB):

• 1661: Samuel Morland experimented with using gunpowder to create a vacuum to pump water; also suggested using steam
• 1662: Edward Somerset published ideas on a condensing steam engine to power water fountains; his Dutch former collaborator Calthoff did some experiments at Vauxhall
• 1663: Otto von Guericke's famous 'Magdeburg hemispheres' demonstration
• 1674: Huygens and Papin continued Morland's work with vacuums
• 1675: Papin visited England and worked with Robert Boyle
• 1679: Papin spoke at Royal Society, discussed his ideas on vacuums, published papers in England; Newcomen, a member of the Society, could have learnt of his ideas; according to Robert H. Thurston in A History of the Growth of the Steam Engine [1], Newcomen and Savery worked together much earlier than 1712
• 1690: Papin, back in France, invented condensing steam piston engine but failed to recognise its importance
• 1698: Savery patented 'thermic siphon', partly based on English steam-pressure water fountains such as Somerset's, and partly based on Papin's concept of the vacuum; he probably didn't know about Papin's piston engine or he would have used it; it was marketed as a mine pump but couldn't actually handle the depth of a mine; instead it was used in a couple of small-scale water-supply projects in London
• 1705: Leibniz told Papin about Savery's engine; Papin tried to improve it by adding a piston, but made a great leap backwards by leaving out the condensing stage
• 1707: Papin published his 1705 design
• 1712: Newcomen got it right, either by combining Papin's 1705 piston with Savery's 1698 vacuum idea, or by copying Papin's 1690 engine; because of Savery's patent, he could build the engine only by going into partnership with Savery; the engine was successful; Papin claimed that the invention was a copy of his; the controversy remains to this day

It seems to me that Papin had all the right ideas first, but (a) failed to put them together in the right order and (b) had no use for his ideas because he wasn't in fuel-starved, industrial England. The debt (if any) that Savery owed to Papin was the concept of the vacuum, which was developed in Europe based on early work by Morland. --Heron 17:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the diagram you link to above is MUCH more obviously like the Savery device. Wuld you mind if I cut the timeline above into the steam power timeline here? Maury 22:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I would rather you didn't, as I was not trying to be neutral and I didn't give any references. Bear in mind that my sources were mostly British. There are other viewpoints that give more credit to Papin and accuse Newcomen and Savery of mere incompetent plagiarism. This article, for example, is virulently anti-British but may contain a grain or more of truth. Let's not rush: together we can transfer the dates one at a time from here to the article, but only after verifying each one and providing references. --Heron 14:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I've just looked at the Timeline of steam power article, and seen that the existing items don't have detailed references either. Therefore, I've changed my mind a bit. I think it would be OK to copy the factual parts of my timeline, those with dates that we can easily verify, to the Wikipedia timeline, as long as you leave out the conjectural bits, my speculations on who influenced whom, and my sarcastic "great leap backwards" comment, and leave in my references where they exist. I think it's particularly important to add Papin's model of 1690, even though it didn't do any useful work. --Heron 14:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

de Havilland/De Havilland

While the website for modern company De Havilland Aviation does spell it with a capital D, the company that built the aircraft was lower case. I'll leave it to you to restore the template. GraemeLeggett 08:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I stand corrected. However, I'm not going to restore the template just yet, because I still think it's unjustified. There is no more reason to place the template on the de Havilland page than there is on the cheese page. They must both be capitalised when they occur at the start of a sentence or, in this case, at the start of an article title. The only exceptions, in my opinion, are a few technical terms like e (the constant), and things like newsgroup names and URLs, which look odd when the first letter is capitalised. --Heron 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Grimaldi and da Vinci

Where did you get the info about da Vinci, on Grimaldi's page, re diffraction "(although Leonardo Da Vinci had earlier noted it)"? I can't find a source that mentions da Vinci. Dicklyon 00:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a footnote to Francesco Maria Grimaldi which shows the best reference I can find. --Heron 17:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that interesting page link. See if you agree with my interpretation (Talk:Francesco Maria Grimaldi). Dicklyon 23:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine by me. --Heron 21:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Display Data Channel

Can you please expand the DDC/CI section in Display Data Channel to explain (in brief) how it handles Auto Pivot in modern LCD displays? --Yehuda 14:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how it works, but I added a brief note to the article to say that it exists. If I find out, I'll add more. --Heron 19:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Yehuda 20:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

clarification

Please visit Types Of AM and clarify them. --Electron Kid 12:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I added some Wiki links to the terms you listed. Click on them to find out more. --Heron 19:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but these terms still remain unclarified. In fact, these have not been mentioned anywhere. --Electron Kid 02:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

All the information is there. If you want more help, you will have to be more specific. Which bits do you understand and which bits don't you? --Heron 19:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean to ask, for example, in 'J3E', what does, 'J' stand for, what does '3' signify and what 'E' implies.--Electron Kid 16:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand you. The information you seek is in Types of radio emissions. I'll see if I can add some more links to make this easier to find. --Heron 19:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Architecture Wikiproject

Hi, many thanks for all your architecture and planning edits. I was wondering if you might be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture. It's currently the umbrella project for issues relating to planning (All though there is talk of establishing a unique planning wikiproject). Also we've been revamping the Architecture Portal and nominations to Portal:Architecture/Selected picture candidates and Portal:Architecture/Selected article candidates will always be welcome. --Mcginnly 10:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I'll keep an eye on the project, but I'm not going to join immediately as I don't have any special expertise on the subject. --Heron 16:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Zener.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Zener.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Rory096 07:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Rory096 07:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No objection. --Heron 14:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)