Talk:Oxford Electric Bell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Ring?
What is it, and what does the article mean by "ring"? --The_stuart 19:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- The PDF reference has a picture of it. Its actually two brass bells, underneath two batteries, and a clapper. Electrostatic forces cause the clapper to oscillate between the two bells, striking each in turn. linas 02:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
This has got to be one of the most awesome things I have ever heard of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.17 (talk) 03:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Novelty?
The article states the following about the bell:
- Although the device can now be considered to be a novelty…
Um, novelty? The experiment was set up in 1840; how exactly is that novel? It seems to me that another word was intended.—Kbolino 02:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merriam-Webster disagrees. (Emphasis added) --59.121.193.237 09:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Main Entry: nov·el·ty Pronunciation: 'nä-v&l-tE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties Etymology: Middle English novelte, from Anglo-French novelté, from novel 1 : something new or unusual
haha pwnd
[edit] Wording problem
The article says that "It was purchased by Robert Walker, Professor of Physics at Oxford from 1839 to 1865". I am assuming the "1839 to 1865" refers to the dates of Walker being a professor at Oxford rather than when it was purchased, and am therefore changing the sentence to read "It was purchased by Robert Walker, who was Professor of Physics at Oxford from 1839 to 1865". If this is not correct, please explain. The date the bell was purchased would be a useful addition as well. -- Infrogmation 05:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright clarification
A lot of the text appears to be copied verbatim from http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/history.asp?page=Exhibit1 - what's their copyright policy? I couldn't find it. --CTho 21:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Plagiarism Edit
As the previous commentor also appears to have noticed portions of this article were lifted verbatim from the Oxford University Physics page http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/history.asp?page=Exhibit1. I believe the rest of the content that likely originated on the Oxford page is not problematic since it was presented here in a significantly different manner and the Oxford page is listed as one of two references for the article as a whole, though specific portions are not attributed to it. I only removed those few sections that, though interesting, were directly copied or perhaps minimally altered. Until I looked over the history and saw that the plagiarism was added by a single user at one time I had the strong impression that most of the article would fall under the class of plagiarism, which shows just one reason why you are hurting, not helping wikipedia by adding plagiarised content. I saw the same information rearranged somewhat with a minority directly copied, but those copies made the rest read as plagiarism. The "author" who added the plagiarism detracted from the efforts of those who had put in the effort to write the article properly since since the reader likely approaches the article as if it were a single cohesive piece rather than a collection of edits, though it is both. Please do not plagiarise. --Fitzhugh 05:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)