User talk:Kvetner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, geek who is on this and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Also, thanks for lending your expertise on Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges. It helps to have someone around with the technical knowledge. I've done some research, but since I'm not in the field, that only goes so far. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add my welcome to that - I was just on my way to drop you a lovely welcome template too. Thanks for the awesome work on orthotropic deck. INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 21:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions concerning laced structural elements

Does laced beam encompass struts, ties, and girders? Should "lattice" be used at all (except for lattice truss)? Let me know and I will adjust articles as necessary.

Thanks, Leonard G. 19:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review. It sounds as if the articles are correct as titled and written, but perhaps an image of a lattice girder should be added. It sounds from your description as though one could not make a girder using the lacing seen on the SFOBB example, but what are the proprer details? It seems clear in portions of the Eiffle Tower image, but that might confuse decorative vs. structural considerations. Do you have any suggestions? - Leonard G. 00:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The lattice trusses / girders shown on the Runcorn Railway Bridge and Kew Railway Bridge are fairly representative; I think all you need is a better close-up image of a similar structure. -- Kvetner 19:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] double decker article

Yes there is a chapter about double decker bridges in the double decker article 68.214.4.42 00:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tyne and Wear

Hello! I noticed you often edit articles which relate to North East England so we at WikiProject North East England, would like to invite you to become a member of the WikiProject. We work on creating, expanding a making general changes to North East England related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Project Page.

TellyaddictEditor review! 12:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-anchored suspension bridge

Somehow the Brunell truss (Royal Albert Bridge) does not strike me as a self-anchored suspension bridge. What are your thoughts? - Leonard G. 05:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting question! It's a self-anchored suspension bridge in as much as it has a suspension cable, which is anchored to the structure internally rather than to external anchorages. but clearly it's not the same sort of structure as "self-anchored suspension bridge" normally refers to. By the same logic, it's a bowstring arch bridge - there's an arch, which is tied together at its ends by a tension cable (normally the bowstring cable is a straight line, but in this case it curves downwards) - again, to avoid the arch thrusts having to be resisted by the bridge supports.
I think the best way to resolve this might be to (1) remove it from the self-anchored suspension bridge category (as it isn't an example of what you might expect to find there), (2) add a paragraph to the Royal Albert Bridge article discussing how the structure works in more detail, and (3) add brief "see alsos" to the main self-anchored suspension bridge and tied arch bridge articles which point here as an example of a variant form. I haven't had time to look through all the various articles to see if this will work out succesfully. -- Kvetner 12:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bridge

I don't know much about bridges but I found the concerned article confusing. There is a section called Type of Bridges and the first sentence says that there are 4 main types of bridges. And then you have "Index to types of bridges" which lists some 40 different types of bridges. Well, talking about the main types of bridges, movable bridge is one of the first ones which comes to my mind. But perhaps, in this case the bridges are classified according to their structural design/support. If that is the case, I think the article should mention that. It might seem too obvious to bridge experts but everybody is not one. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 13:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi, Kvetner ! I wrote about the Real Ferdinando bridge because it's a vehicular bridge as the Union Bridge and Menai Bridge. Actually, Real Ferdinando bridge is the oldest in continental Europe still carrying road traffic. Your experience about bridges is very significant and I appreciate it, but I think you can revise your opinion. Bye ! --Emmeauerre due 20:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Glanhafren Hall Railway Bridges

Maps show two railway bridges near Glanhafren Hall, but the Severn Crossings article only lists one. Can you shed any light, please? Andy Mabbett 15:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The one to the east is Glanhafren Hall Railway Bridge, the one to the west is Penstrowed Railway Bridge. Both are listed on the Crossings of the River Severn article. Then there's another railway bridge a little further to the east from GHRR, this crosses a tributary to the Severn rather than the river itself. Does this clarify it? -- Kvetner 21:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I typed that before I saw you had Penstrowed Railway Bridge correctly coordinated already. Anyway, I'm fairly sure (based solely on the map reference I've got) that of the two rail bridges next to Glanhafren Hall on streetmap, it's the one on the left. -- Kvetner 21:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. So what's the other one? ;-) Andy Mabbett 22:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Works of Thomas Telford

Did you know that we have a Category:Works of Thomas Telford ? Andy Mabbett 14:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shakkin' Briggie

I was thinking about moving the article text of Shakkin' Briggie you created today to the page St. Devenick's Bridge, as this is its official name (presumably on official documentation such as maps etc..). I see you have already created redirects from Shakkin' Briggie and Morison's Bridge so it would be quite easy to change them around. Thought I'd see what you think first before moving it. Bobbacon 18:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Shakkin' Briggie. -- Kvetner 20:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] structural engineer

hi, do you think all the structural engineers from civil engineering background ? i don't think it is ! -- unsigned comment by 218.111.173.221

No, but I think structural engineering is a subset of civil engineering in as much as pretty much all civil engineers are taught how to design structures, while most structural engineers study only a subset of civil engineering. Essentially, civils design infrastructure, which includes structures, while structural engineers design structures only - it's a speciality in exactly the same way as drainage engineering or highway engineering is. -- Kvetner 17:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
First of all, thank you for your reply !
Perhaps, i think you make some mistake ! civil engineers are taught to design civil structures but it does not cover architectural structures, mechanical structures and industrial structures ! Please be remind, the structural engineering we talk about is an overall structural engineering but not the one only cover within civil structures topics ! i admits traditionally, it view as part of civil engineering but in modern day, this concept is out dated ! so please don't attempt to squeeze structural engineering into civil engineering anymore !
If you still feel doubt about my point, please refer to the curriculum of B.S. in structural engineering program offer by University of California - San Deigo and Nagasaki University. -- unsigned comment by 218.111.175.215
Thank you for your comments, but you will see that I am reverting the structural engineer page yet again. I am a structural engineer myself, and a Chartered Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Many of the greatest structural engineers of all time (Eiffel, Maillart, Telford, Brunel) have also been civil engineers. I don't really need to look at any curricula - I am both a civil and structural engineer and deeply involved in this area every day. I was taught how to design "architectural structures" (i.e. buildings) and mechanical structures, yet I remain a civil engineer - and the same is true for every civil engineer I have ever met, which is quite a few! I suggest you refer to the page on civil engineering where you will note that structural engineering is indeed commonly seen as a sub-discipline. I accept that some structural engineers are not civil engineers, and the wording on the structural engineer page reflects that.
Can I ask that to avoid a constant edit battle you discuss the issue further on Talk:Structural engineer so that others may offer their opinions? Also, I would ask that you sign your comments on talk pages using the "sign your username" option. -- Kvetner 16:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for you comments ! I am also a structural engineer but not a civil engineer because i am graduate from structural engineering degree. what is the point for you to keep squeezing structural engineering into civil engineering ? sturctural engineering remain structural engineering whereas civil engineering remain civil engineering ! is totally two independent engineering disciplines ! civil engineering can't representing structural engineering in term of interests, professionals and others. i know to page on civil engineering, structural engineering shown as its subset but this structural engineering they mentioned is representing civil structures. A person can be civil engineer and structural engineer but this does not mean the both professions are same. Dont tell me an aerospace engineering graduate now is working as a structural engineer in aerospace industry also a civil engineer ! Unless you are able to convince me or else story will continue because this is not only misleading the readers and also omitted the respect of a structural engineer !
Kvetner and Hwachang82, do you mind if I copy this thread over to Talk:Structural engineering so everyone can participate? Actually, rather than wait for an answer, I'll just tell you that that is what I'm doing. In the mean time, being level-headed engineers, I assume we can all be civil enough to hold off on edit warring and saying things like "I will never give way" over this; let's just leave it as is, while we build a consensus. (I'm sorry, that sounds patronizing, I don't mean it to be) --barneca (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
rats, I meant Structural engineer. --barneca (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hwachang82, I stuck my nose into this subject, and moved the discussion over to Talk:Structural engineer. I se you're modifying your comments above. Please don't add or change any more comments here; add them to Talk:Structural engineer instead. Thanks --barneca (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Severn crossing coordinates

I've merged your OS refs into Crossings of the River Severn. Can you add to them? Andy Mabbett

Done. -- Kvetner 23:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Andy Mabbett 11:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] jewellery→jewelry

It just did it (or very similar) again on Bonar Bridge, changing jewelery -> jewelry. I've fixed the page (-> jewellery), but it would be good if you make sure this one is also removed - something best not done by bots, where there's no easy way for it to tell if the page is US or UK. Thanks in advance. -- Kvetner 22:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed it. CmdrObot

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Largest Suspension Bridges

A tag has been placed on Template:Largest Suspension Bridges requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)