User talk:Snozzer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] User:Snozzer/History of bomb disposal
I have moved your article to the above user sub-page in order for you to develop it to encyclopedic standards. When you have finished it, or taken it to a point at which you think that it would be of educational value, have another editor from the Military History Wikiproject review it before publication. Regards, (aeropagitica) 12:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, Im starting to learn the delicacies of WIKI bit by bit "TheNose | Talk" 12:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fuse vs Fuze
Hi, you just changed almost all the instances of "fuze" to "fuse" in the Fuse (explosives) article. The two are not the same thing, and it's not a misspelling. The usage in the article was correct - fuse is the burning cord used to ignite detonators or fireworks typically, fuze is the generic term for a detonator for military ordnance, as the article makes clear. I have reverted your changes there. These are precise technical terms, though they're close enough to be confusing; it's important to keep everything accurate. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 18:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is no difference between Fuze & Fuse except the spelling. The difference is regional, not technical, in the US you may occasionally use the term Fuze, but it is a spelling mistake and not the correct term. If some individual have decided to make up a difference, then you cannot fault them for their ignorance of the fact that the word has the same meaning regardless of spelling. Organise means the same as organize, analyse/analyze etc etc etc"TheNose | Talk" 18:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- It is not a spelling mistake, it's proper, standard technical usage at least in the US. See Cooper's "Explosives Engineering" or the Blasters Handbook. Georgewilliamherbert 18:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I could go on, but as fuse is the same as fuse, and all my training manuals refer to fuse, I dont think I need to quote anymore "TheNose | Talk" 19:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
-
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Tom Harrison Talk 22:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't own the article, nor do you. I did not warn him about 3rr because as an experienced editor he already knows about it. You really can't jump into an article, tell everyone else they are wrong, and expect to impose your preference. If your changes are not accepted, try to argue people around on the talk page. It's clear that American English and technical usage marks the distinction between the two things with a different spelling. British English and technical usage does not. Big deal. We can say so in two sentences if we need to, and it would probably not have been controversial. To say in effect, "You Americans are all wrong, but I have arrived from Ordnance HQ to deliver you from your ignorance" is needlessly antagonistic. Take it easy, let it set for a few days, and make your case on the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 23:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Snozzer, I wanted to clarify why I went to the military technology project page and asked for help. It was clear that you were not listening to me earlier. I was hoping that you'd listen if more editors had a look and commented on the situation, so you didn't think it was just me being obstinate or ignorant.
- For what it's worth, I have some engineering experience in ordnance design and explosives engineering, and I've had aquaintences in EOD and explosives research. I am in the US, so I have a US-centric view of this, but I've also read a lot of the foreign professional literature from detonation conferences and military reports and equipment specifications.
- Having some experience doesn't mean I own the article in any form, but I do have a clue on the subject. I understand you come from an EOD background, which is great, because you also have a clue on the subject in many ways. But there's more to it than that.
- Thanks for participating in the article talk page. It's much preferable to work disagreements out there than on the live article. Georgewilliamherbert 00:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Detection
Ey Up Snozzer,
That's Yorkshire for Hi.
Sorry to run into conflict on the bomb detection talk page. My search for 'bomb detection' comes up blank. I didn't know how best to add a new section to a talk page and was trying the alternative of adding a new section via global page edit, rather than just appending a new section after one the was on a different topic. At that point my internet connection dropped so I didn't have the opportunity to add my comments.
I do appreciate that the search feature is available, and, yes, I will try to check better in future, but it seems to me that there are sometimes related aspects of any particular topic that it might be helpful to mention this aspect in the text of an article itself rather than expecting a general user to think out and ask for themselves. Not everyone who looks up 'bomb disposal', for example, will have realised just how difficult it is to locate the blessed thing in the first place. Davy p 19:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
An ex-squaddie had mentioned, at the time of the Falklands conflict, that there was no good way to deal with landmines; and I've thought about this at intervals since. Worldwide there seems to be a continuing toll which includes non-combatants and animals, and leftover cluster bombs now add to the problem.
A few years back I saw mention of a sort of armoured tractor with flails at the front which would usually explode devices in its path. More recently, bees have been used to collect samples to assess safe- and un-safe areas so that time isn't wasted on searching clear areas. As well as sniffer dogs, rats are now being trained to detect buried devices. There must be other techniques too, but it's obviously difficult when clearing the fairly large areas and differing terrains in which these devices are scattered to find them in the first place.
Maybe 'bomb detection' isn't quite the right description. I haven't yet looked for 'landmine detection' but as this is a continuing problem it seemed appropriate to have a note on the disposal page and perhaps a page in its own right which describes the various approaches to location and clearance. Somewhere in talk there was mention that disposal isn't quite like the movies depict it. Clearing landmines, cluster bombs and other leftovers must take a lot of hard graft and isn't entirely without risk. This reality might balance some of the glitzy movies and, who knows, after seeing details of how it is done someone might just come up with a better way of doing part of it - it's certainly not easy. Davy p 19:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References
- ^ http://www.un.org.pk/latest-dev/UXO-blues/index.htm|Pakistan UN refers to Artilley fuse
- ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/16/wmid16.xml|Daily Telegraph Quoting American Human rights watch regarding an incident in Gaza
- ^ http://www2.hazard.com/msds/f2/bpr/bprqs.html|US Military MSDS Safety Information for M762 ARTILLERY FUSE
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006
The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Detector bees
Ey Up,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/28/letters_2811/page2.html gives this account of ths history of bees as detectors:
"I was enthralled by your article about the US invention of a bomb sniffing device. I love reading about new advances in new technology, even if it does consist of a bee in a box.
"This technology however was of particualr interest as I had already heard of this technology, more specifically I had already heard of this technology when it was invented 3 years ago!
"The technology of sniffing bombs using bees was invened by a British man called Paul Davis. Unfortunatly I had heard that the reason that this was never turn into a working product was that the US gov had applied the Patriot act & taken the technology off the compnay to use for their own ends.
"All that the US had to do was to build their own version of the design, very clearly outlined in the patent. I'm not sure why US scientist needed 18 months research, the patent is one of the clearest I have ever read and clearly shows a lot of work has already been carried out.
"Apparently 'their own ends' also translates as "wait 3 years and claim that we invented it".
"Mick"
Myself I sometimes get a bit itchy about patriotism, but this sounds not entirely unlike the story that is told of the cracking of the Enigma code. Davy p 03:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
