Talk:Coandă-1910/Archive 6

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Edit request from Lsorin, 4 October 2010

{{edit protected}} Move the references to the Bibliography.

Bibliography
  • Cassier's Magazine. 39: 199. 1911. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • "Suction Turbines Serve as Air Propellers". Popular Mechanics. Hearst Magazines: 359. March 1911. ISSN 0032-4558. a suction turbine that takes the place of the ordinary aeroplane propeller
  • "Technical World Magazine". 15. 1911: 615. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • Aircraft. 1: 367. 1910. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics - Evolution of Flight Campaign [1]

Lsorin (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

  • disagree These references are the only contemporary coverage we have as yet of the 1910 Paris airshow where the plane was debuted, and they all describe the 1910 Coanda's propulsion system as operating as a ducted fan. The proposal of hiding the references that interfere with your Idea of what the article should be in the bibliography is no more appropriate than If I proposed that all the post 1950 claims that it really was a jet should be moved to the bibliography. At least I assume you would find that inappropriate, but maybe I shouldn't be making such an assumption. So what about it Lsorin, is it okay with you if we put all the references that claim it was a jet in the bibliography? Romaniantruths (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
In the consensus build-up you did not comment at all. I explained in the Jet Engine section and several other edits that 1910 references from media are not exactly accurate as today's terminology of Jet Engine which is one to one with the technical term [[turbojet] which was patented at the end of 30'es by Frank Wittle. And I don't understand how the references are hidden? They are very visible and can be addressed at anytime any where is this article. Please propose those additions later. All the possible references should be added to bibliography and especially the contemporary ones as the current specialist have more understanding on the terminology history, access to more material than some precedent investigations. --Lsorin (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. -- Ϫ 09:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was tried in the section and was mostly ignored by the side which is fine with the current version. The proposal for the bibliography was done according to Amatulic proposal from my first edit request from 4 October 2010. --Lsorin (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Let's stop bothering administrators with notional edit requests that have not already been hammered out in discussion. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that, the administrators need to see is that you, personally have no problem with the current incorrect version in Wikipedia and that is why you don't want to participate in building up any kind of consensus.--Lsorin (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have warned the parties earlier on this talk page: assume good faith, discuss the topic, and don't discuss other people or their motivations. I'm not ready to enforce this by blocking people, but be aware that's an option.

The issue here is consensus. If consensus wasn't established in past discussion, and can't be established here, then the article won't change. The version Lsorin proposed disagrees with numerous sources that Binksternet brought up.

Instead of commenting on an editor's behavior, comment instead on those sources. There are a couple questions to resolve, as I see it:

  • How is the current version of the lead incompatible with all versions of the sources brought up so far?
  • How can the lead be restated to be compatible with all version of the sources, taking into account their reliability and weighting?

Try working on those before proposing another change to the lead. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the balanced approach, Amatulic. I would like to remind Lsorin that I have, in fact, been working on a consensus version of this article, one that is not the current version. My sandbox work can be found at Talk:Coandă-1910/Binksternet, and can be discussed at Talk:Coandă-1910#Sandbox_version. It is not true that I am personally happy with the current version. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Please block me from any edits! At least I understand your neutral entry as a personal threat to any of my efforts! My question was never answered in this forum by any of the contesters: What has the definition of jet engine different for Coanda-1910 powerplant? I hope this is my last edit before the blocking.

--Lsorin (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You have not yet done anything disruptive to warrant a block as I believe you are acting in good faith. You have, rather, become somewhat impatient and personal in your comments, which is understandable in any dispute. I am simply reminding you of two things: assume good faith, and focus on the article, not your perceived motivations of the behavior of others. I don't want to see others accusing you of making personal attacks. If you have a problem with behavior, there are other forums (such as WP:ANI) for working that out, but this article talk page isn't one of them.
As to your question: I'm going to step outside the role of neutral mediator and offer a non-neutral viewpoint: I personally agree with you that the Coanda-1910's powerplant appears compatible with jet propulsion. But that's based on my personal reading of the description of the powerplant in this article. The problem is one of synthesis and original research, both of which are prohibited. My personal view has zero relevance, no matter how fervently I believe it. The same goes for you and anybody else. So we have to put our own views aside and look for sources instead.
A Wikipedia article can report only what reliable sources report. If you find some that describe the Coanda-1910's powerplant as a jet engine, then it's fine to state that in the article. If other sources disagree, then the article should fairly represent the views from the different sources. What we can't do here is synthesize a conclusion based on available information, no matter how logical the deduced conclusion may appear. Bottom line, the conclusion has to be in the sources. The WP:BURDEN is on the person who wants to add information to find reliable sources to back it up.
Again, please try to answer the two questions I posed in my comment above where I declined this edit. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you at least to listen, at least, to my requests and I will remain grateful if all editors will remain neutral like you. I have tried to answer all the questions of every single editor here so I will try to answer your questions as well below. For instance may of my questions were left unanswered by obvious reasons from the other side.

"*How is the current version of the lead incompatible with all versions of the sources brought up so far?" The current version is based of two single doubtful sources from Gibbs-Smith and Frank H. Winter. The sources from 1910 and not relevant as the "Jet Engine" equal to "turbojet" term was coined much later with the patent of Frank Wittle. As well the 1910-1911 technical sources ( the patents, the leaflets) in different languages use the term "turbo-propeller" or in French "turbo-propulseur" Many other sources are ignored for some mysterious reasons by all editors happy with this current version.

"*How can the lead be restated to be compatible with all version of the sources, taking into account their reliability and weighting?" I think some of the reliability of some sources was already discussed and weighted for some of the sources. For instance Gibbs-Smith as already analyzed in the consensus section without comments from the editors agreeing with the current version. Please see as well the latest section added and the last entries about Gibbs-Smith. That is why I consider the version containing the wording "the first jet-propelled aircraft" must be part of the introduction. --Lsorin (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

editing proposal 4:14 October 6

I have a suggestion to discuss about editing the lead: adding links to footnotes #1,#3,and#4. This will allow the reader to see a range of different descriptions that were applied to the Coanda 1910 by journals which covered the airshow.Romaniantruths (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

editing proposal 4:24 Oct 6

Here's another one to discuss: In the design section change "According to some sources the compressor had no provision.." to "According to pre-WWII sources the compressor had no provision.." and change "some other sources.." to "some post WWII sources..." That is, unless anybody has found a pre-WWII source saying the turbopropulseur had provisions for the injection and combustion of fuel.Romaniantruths (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Flight 1910, first and only contemporary source just said that it was "a turbine driven engine with no propeller". It doesnt talk about internal details, as they wasnt know to them. The patent called "improvements for a propeller" you said, is not sure if was exactly the same with one used for Coanda-1910, and just Coanda archives and documents have the real model. And just Harry Stine, Antoniu and Cracinoiu (all with technical qualifications, unlike Gibbs for ex., or Winter) studied them, and have the knowledge to interpret them correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.125 (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Gibbs-Smith wrote: "The written descriptions of the 'turbo-propulseur' state that it was simply a ducted air fan driven by a petrol engine; and this is confirmed by two sectional diagrams of the fan, with full descriptive text, which appeared in the issue dated December 10th 1910 (pages 900–901) of Flug- und Motor-Technik, the official journal of the Österreichische Flugtechnische Verein, the drawings being taken from a French source." The internal details are shown clearly in 1910, and they do not have fuel injection into the airstream. The only heat coming from the engine was from compression, contact with heat exchanger ducts, and the addition of piston-engine exhaust gases. What Stine was looking at (and perhaps helped assemble) was a 1965 reworking of the 1910 diagram, where two burners were drawn in to prove Coanda's story. Winter confirms. Both Gibbs-Smith and Winter are fantastic expert sources. Binksternet (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
From which publication are you quoting Gibbs-Smith? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Flight is not the only contemporary source. As well as the reference Binksternet quotes above, footnotes 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all contemporary sources. they're the subject of the proposal above this one. When you examine them, as I'm sure you will, let us know what you think of the proposal concerning them as well.Romaniantruths (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Why does the later claims section say "The original patent and story of the aircraft are presented at Le Bourget Air and Space Museum"? This doesn't look like a claim to me, and the patents are well-established by other references to not mention the fuel injection and combustion. Even pro-Coanda references admit this, don't they?Romaniantruths (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

I think we should make a top, depending on how reliable a source is regarding with the subject. I dont see why peoples like Gibbs, with no technical qualifications, who worked most of his life searching for old photographies, arranging exponates in museum and working as keeper of Public Relations, a stountly believer in ghosts, paranormal and (ironically), "flying saucers", can be trusted as an autorithy in engines and technical caractheristics? And peoples like Walter J. Boyne, former colonel in Air Force (and ofcourse pilot on jet aircrafts), former director of Air and Space Museum and a reputed aviation historian is not even mentioned here, his article and statement was erased!!! This is just stupid, seriously. Harry Stine, rocket scientist and author of numerous books related with astronautics and aeronautics, who worked several years with Coanda and had all his documents, archives, patents etc. can be put on the same scale with Winter, former journalist of the army with a degree in history? This is hilarious, and made wikipedia just a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.125 (talk) 07:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If you go there, Stine can be dismissed as too close to Coanda, overawed by the man, a patsy. If you go there, you will find that Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith's most respected work was on aviation history, and that no attempt to derail him as a superb source will succeed. It does not matter that he worked on this or that subject besides early flight; aviation history is what we are concerned about, and the subject in which he was awarded the great honor of being knighted. Frank H. Winter was one of NASM's finest aviation historians, and made a completely new study of the Coanda-1910 claim. The only point I can see to this discussion topic is that you wish to flush Gibbs-Smith and Winter away where you will not have to deal with them. Unfortunately for you, the guys you do not like are here to stay, accepted as expert sources. Binksternet (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Check in the next section the reliability of the Gibbs-Smith and his respected work. I can find more link if you need. You still never commented my entry in the consensus section about Gibbs and his neutrality as a source.--Lsorin (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The Stine-Coanda connection is worse than you think. Stine used Coanda's flying saucer aircraft claims to lend verisimilitude to many of his works of science fiction. This gives him an even more compelling reason to tout Coanda's 'inventions' as futuristic work.Romaniantruths (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • oh boy, you are so blinded by bias that you are unable to see the real facts. All what i said about Gibbs and Winter are real facts and can be prouved, what you say about Stine is your own suposition made to revenge somehow on what i said about your idols. Stine is the ultimate autorithy (alongside few romanian authors) on Coanda, the only one (non romanian) who had acces to all materials and had the qualifications required to understand it. Same is Boyne for ex., but in no way Winter. And Gibbs too seem that he changed his mind by 1970, and gived credit to Coanda, but still is not near as reliable as Stine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.129.82 (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources that say first jet aircraft

More reliable sources said that Coanda was [2], [3], [4], [5] saying that "The first jet-propelled aircraft made an attempted flight at Issy-les-Moulineaux near Paris, France on December 10, 1910. It was built and operated by Dr. Henri Marie Coanda who crashed it on takeoff because he did not know how to fly ..."", then [6], [7], [8], [9] saying "Armed with this data and the financial assistance of his father, Coanda began the construction of his jet. He had Pierre Clerget, master mechanic of French "aero" engines, build his turbopropulseur — the engine."", [10] saying that "10 Dec 1910 Romanian Henri Coanda hops the world's first jet-powered aeroplane. It is powered by a 37.25 kW (50 hp) Clerget piston engine driving a centrifugal air compressor (see page 11)."", [11] saying that "One December morning in 1910 a young inventor- pilot named Henri-Marie Coanda was testing a crude turbojet attached to a plywood aircraft, both of his own design, at Issy-les-Mouli- neaux, a suburb of Paris. ..."", [12] with "Coanda, Henri (1885- 1972) Romanian aviator engineer who, in 1910, built the world's first jet- propelled aeroplane. "", [13], saying that "Evidently the first flight of a jet airplane was not that made by the Germans in 1939, but a somewhat abortive flight made by Henri Coanda in December, 1910 (Royal Air Force Flying Review, September 1956)"", [14] saying "Coanda pursued various business ventures, including prefabricated housing, before devoting his career to aeronautical research. He had already designed and briefly flown a rudimentary turbojet plane in 1910, but he is best known as the ..."", [15] saying that "Coanda flew a jet airplane in 1910, and in 1933 successfully tested an aircraft that used his jet- stream effect to produce lift; he later called the latter the world's first "flying saucer," because of its round shape."", [16] saying "Coanda-1910. After his plane took off, Coanda observed that the flames and burned gases that went out ... a flying machine that resembles a flying saucer. Coanda himself considered that this could be the most important application of ..."", [17] here is mentioned that Coanda used a jet stream for his "flying saucer" project from early 30', [18], saying "One December morning in 1910 a young inventor- pilot named Henri-Marie Coanda was testing a crude turbojet attached ...(Coanda said) future in the air is in the 'flying saucer.'""", [19] saying "In 1933 he exhibited a small model of a saucer- shaped plane, which raised itself vertically, and in 1937 demonstrated the principle known as the "Coanda effect," an aerodynamic phenomenon producing lift by deflection of jet blasts. ..."" so again jet is mentioned related with a Coanda invention (of that flying saucer) in 1933!!!, [20] saying at page 339 that "Meanwhile, Secondo Campini reinvented the Coanda"" so using the same type of engine, "motorjet" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.125 (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

  • more sources
  • Jet age airlanes, Volume 21 Ayre Publishing Co., 1956 (google books search) with" Henri Coanda (right), who first built and flew a jet aircraft at""
  • [21]with "Professor Henri Coanda, whose scientific work was impeccable, designed and built a jet aircraft in 1910""
  • [22]including here the opinion of Russian Academy"In 1910 at an aeronautical show near Paris, Henri-Marie Coanda, a young Romanian engineer, launched an airplane that was a prototype of modern jet planes. It had jets of fire emerging from lateral thrust nozzles. ...""
  • [23]
  • [24]with"Two years later another Frenchman, Henri Coanda, actually built and flew a jet-propelled plane.""
  • [25] mention of Coanda jet propelled ice-sled "On the left of the photograph is shown the reaction-propelled (jet) ice sled on display at the 1910 Paris automobile show. ...""
  • [26]with "Major Events in the History of the Jet Engine 1910 Coanda proposes aircraft engine with piston-driven compressor and jet exhaust""
  • [27]with"Jet engines, as possible powerplants for aircraft, were alluded to in the 1920s, and a primitive piston engine driven type had been built by France's Professor Coanda as long ago as 1910 ...""
  • Revue roumaine des sciences techniques: Série de mécanique appliquée, Volume 13, Issues 1-3 (googlebooks search] with (in french)"Enfin, dans leur livre « The Jet Aircraft of the World », publié à Londres, en 1955, les auteurs Green et Cross reconnaissent, eux aussi,, que le premier avion à réaction du monde a été celui exposé par Coanda à Paris en 1910"" aprox. translations"and finaly, in their book « The Jet Aircraft of the World » published in London in 1955, authors Green and Cross recognized that the world's first jet aircraft was that presented by Coanda at Paris in 1910""


How many of those sources use evidence from before WWI? All of them appear to base their text on Coanda's claims made in the mid-1950s and later. If there is one that uses 1910s documents, I would like to know it.
Your 1989 Air & Space source, Volume 4 from the Smithsonian, is not as fully supportive as you might think. It says "What actually happened to the 25-year-old Coanda and his airplane on that bleak winter morning outside Paris is to this day the subject of controversy."
Why do some sources say 10 December 1910 and others say 16 December 1910? Which one is correct? I suspect that both dates are fiction. Binksternet (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Would you object if we formatted those links you have given to make them easier to read? It's not the done thing to edit another users comments without their permission but a bit of formatting would help. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • no, you can put them in a better form, ofcourse, i am not too use to wikipedia style. I will add several more as well, and you can arrange them better
Answers to your questions Binsktenet.
This source is not reliable. This has been explained repeatedly. It has no listed author and was self-published.
I still wonder how is more close to really the people having access to Coanda's documents or a knighted historian which was contested by his own readers link1, link2, link3, link4, link5, link6, link7, link8.

Reading all this articles you can see that Gibbs-Smith, exactly like his supporters today, Binksternet and Romaniantruths was forcibly ignoring all the sources showing him that his statements were incorrect. --Lsorin (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

As I read it the debate between Penrose and Gibbs-Smith was on the pre-eminence of the Wrights and whether there was any independent spirit in Europe towards successful flight ie not inspired by or derivative of the Wrights work. The Coanda-1910 is not part of the discussion. I note that some of the correspondence in Flight includes supporters of Gibbs-Smith's position though I do not recognise the names and therefore cannot comment on their reliability.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • more then that, Gibbs seem to agree after all with the preeminence of Coanda, if not that it fly, at least that it was the first [28]"Another unsuccessful, but prophetic, machine was the Coanda biplane ... Although inevitably earth-bound, this aircraft stands as the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane."" It seem that by 1970 he changed his views on the subject, or studied more, so i think the discussion about him is done. Even if i still dont consider him an autorithy on this, not near at Stine and Boyne level.
Please can you format your links so they are more compact, it makes for difficult reading. eg [http://www.bbc.co.uk bbc.co.uk] which shows as bbc.co.uk. there are templates to make formatting better eg the link you give above or its equivalent can be formatted to show as: Gibb-Smith (1970). "Aviation: an historical survey from its origins to the end of World War II". HMSO. pp. 156 and 160. using {{cite web}}


Extra sources:

External links:

--Lsorin (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Coandă-1910/Archive_6"