User talk:Tierlieb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] [sic]

When you see a [sic] you are seeing an ancient short form that means -- '"Yes, I know this is a questionable spelling, but this is a quote, and that is how it is spelled, or punctuated, in the original, so don't go fixing it!"

You changed a bunch of places where I spelled Kalashnikov, as Kalishnikov, and a half-dozen other alternative spellings, because that is how it was spelled in the original.

You got grumpy with me, inappropriately so, I believe.

You won't find a [sic] after every error the officers who compiled the allegations made, because (1) I didn't anticipate other editors wouldn't understand that this was quoted material, and I didn't use [sic] at first; (2) the officers make so many errors, it is hard not to overlook some, or grow so used to them that they seem normal.

But I used it here, and you changed it anyway.

I am checking the originals as I change back to the spelling in the original, to make sure I don't restore any instances where I actually did make a typo. -- Geo Swan 04:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Another instance -- Geo Swan 07:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, I know what "sic" means. And even if I had not known, it is linked. So I thought "If that guy writes 'sic', it probably is like that in the original". But, you know, I have this strange habit of thinking "well, maybe I should check what the original source says". So, I read it. Now I admit a mistake: I read only the first text that I encountered (about Mohammad Ahmed Abdullah Saleh Al Hanashi. I found that there was no mention of the word on pages 55 or 56 on the first document refered to, no menation on pages 201 and 202 of the third you mentioned, plus, in the beginning of the text, the word is written correctly. But now I see that the part about the "Kalishnikov" referenced the middle document and there the typo is. So I see you're right. You don't have to double-check those articles, I'll do that. Tierlieb 12:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] steel / cast iron

Hi,

Accessibility might be the right term. Sometimes steering an article toward the practical is better than trying to stretch definitions to the limit. Cast iron generally does have a higher carbon content than most steel, but it has a different set of properties because it also has something else, usually a lot of silicon. We wouldn’t want to encourage the misimpression that it is only a boundry based on carbon content. I have heard that a common accidental, and unmarketable, product of early metalurgy was a material with a high carbon and not enough of anything else. Meggar 00:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point. I was only worried that this related article could not be found anymore, but since it is listed in the box about "Other Iron-based materials", that is okay. That was my accessibility problem, so this is fixed, too ;-). Btw.: I think the problem with early metallurgy you mention is a problem with the construction of a bloomery and its airflow. I was quite surprised that this fact was mentioned there already. Wikipedia continues to surprise me  :-) Tierlieb 18:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A request for your help with my research

Dear Tierlieb

My name is Jim Sutton and I'm undertaking research in the School of Library, Archive, and Information Studies, UCL.

My research involves studying wiki usage, the reasons why individuals use wikis and the benefits/disadvantages of using wikis to manage knowledge.

I noticed a contribution of yours to the article on wikis and I was wondering if you would agree to my analysing your contributions to Wikipedia. This will basically involve calculating how many times you've contributed to Wikipedia within the time period of a week.

I was also wondering what your reasons are for using/contributing to Wikipedia. I'd be extremely grateful for any feedback you can provide.

If you agree to my analysing your contributions and can provide any feedback as to why you contribute to Wikipedia I’d be very grateful. My email address is james.sutton (at) ucl.ac.uk and can be emailed at this address if you agree and have any feedback or questions.

I also have a survey online which I'm using as part of my research at:

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/stqa7937/survey/

My Wikipedia username is Sutton4019 and my research is being carried out jointly with Melissa Terras at UCL. Her email address is m.terras (at) ucl.ac.uk .

If you have any questions please let me know and thank you for your time. Thanks! --Sutton4019 09:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ballistics and the Thompson/Center Contender

Your question regarding the .500 S&W and .45-70 got me to thinking. I put together a spreadsheet containing internal ballistics information for various cartridges the Contender is and isn't chambered for, and did some calculations of bolt thrust (chamber pressure times the area at the base of the cartridge (not counting any rim)). It looks like the maximum bolt thrust is around 7500 pounds, which is actually very low. This rules out things such as the .454 Casull, whose bolt thrust exceeds the .22-250. It shows that the 28,000 PSI loading of the .45-70 is a very mild cartridge, with a thrust less than many popular Contender calibers, such as the 7-30 Waters, .35 Remington, and .223 Remington. Here's the chart:

  • Caliber PSI Head Area Thrust BBL source
  • .45-70 Trapdoor 18,000 0.5000 0.1963 3533 N/A
  • .30 Carbine 40,000 0.3550 0.0989 3957 factory
  • .45-70 SAAMI 28,000 0.5000 0.1963 5495 factory
  • .35 Remington 33,500 0.4574 0.1642 5502 factory
  • .30-30 Win 42,000 0.4215 0.1395 5858 factory
  • .357 Herrett 42,000 0.4220 0.1398 5871 factory
  • .44 Magnum 36,000 0.4570 0.1639 5902 factory
  • .223 Rem 55,000 0.3730 0.1092 6007 factory
  • 7x30 Waters 45,000 0.4215 0.1395 6276 factory
  • 7.62x39 45,000 0.4380 0.1506 6777 Bullberry
  • .445 Super Mag 43,300 0.4570 0.1639 7099 factory
  • .45 Win Mag 40,000 0.4770 0.1786 7144 factory
  • .444 Marlin 42,000 0.4690 0.1727 7252 N/A
  • .375 JDJ 43,800 0.4640 0.1690 7403 factory
  • .45-70 Max 40,000 0.5000 0.1963 7850 N/A
  • .50 Action Exp 35,000 0.5470 0.2349 8221 N/A
  • .480 Ruger 48,000 0.5040 0.1994 9571 N/A
  • .243 Win 60,000 0.4700 0.1734 10404 N/A
  • .308 Win 62,000 0.4700 0.1734 10751 N/A
  • .500 S&W Mag 50,000 0.5260 0.2172 10860 N/A
  • .25-06 Rem 63,000 0.4700 0.1734 10925 N/A
  • .22-250 Rem 65,000 0.4660 0.1705 11080 N/A
  • .454 Casull 65,000 0.4800 0.1809 11756 N/A

Sorry about the units--all my sources are in English units, not SI. PSI is of course pounds force per square inch, "head" is in inches, "area" is in square inches, thrust is in pounds-force. BBL source is who I found that makes the barrels; the 7.63x39 I put in because it's a .30-30 class cartridge, yet T/C doesn't make a barrel (and the Bullberry offering is a US standard .308 inch bore, rather than the European/Soviet bloc .311 inch bore, so it's primarily a handloading proposition). Where possible, I use SAAMI pressures, and where not, I used the Accurate Arms online reloading information, and picked the max pressure. There are 3 .45-70 loadings, which are common in handloading manuals. The 18,000 psi loading is for the old "Trapdoor" rifles, and duplicates the black powder pressures. The 28,000 psi loading is the SAAMI standard for modern rifles, such as the Marlin lever actions and the T/C Contender. The 35,000 psi loads are unofficial +P loadings for use in modern single shots, like the Ruger #1, and bolt action rifles. scot (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I just can't win...looks like you'll have to paste that into something that respects tabs and uses a fixed pitch font to make it readable. scot (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
How about the following table? Great work, btw. Tierlieb (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Caliber PSI Head Area Thrust BBL source
.45-70 Trapdoor 18,000 0.5000 0.1963 3533 N/A
.30 Carbine 40,000 0.3550 0.0989 3957 factory
.45-70 SAAMI 28,000 0.5000 0.1963 5495 factory
.35 Remington 33,500 0.4574 0.1642 5502 factory
.30-30 Win 42,000 0.4215 0.1395 5858 factory
.357 Herrett 42,000 0.4220 0.1398 5871 factory
.44 Magnum 36,000 0.4570 0.1639 5902 factory
.223 Rem 55,000 0.3730 0.1092 6007 factory
7x30 Waters 45,000 0.4215 0.1395 6276 factory
7.62x39 45,000 0.4380 0.1506 6777 Bullberry
.445 Super Mag 43,300 0.4570 0.1639 7099 factory
.45 Win Mag 40,000 0.4770 0.1786 7144 factory
.444 Marlin 42,000 0.4690 0.1727 7252 N/A
.375 JDJ 43,800 0.4640 0.1690 7403 factory
.45-70 Max 40,000 0.5000 0.1963 7850 N/A
.50 Action Exp 35,000 0.5470 0.2349 8221 N/A
.480 Ruger 48,000 0.5040 0.1994 9571 N/A
.243 Win 60,000 0.4700 0.1734 10404 N/A
.308 Win 62,000 0.4700 0.1734 10751 N/A
.500 S&W Mag 50,000 0.5260 0.2172 10860 N/A
.25-06 Rem 63,000 0.4700 0.1734 10925 N/A
.22-250 Rem 65,000 0.4660 0.1705 11080 N/A
.454 Casull 65,000 0.4800 0.1809 11756 N/A

That does make things a lot more readable, however I'm not sure it's usable in an article. I'm not sure it's possible to find a source that definitively says "bolt thrust is the limit to the Contender's ability"; I took a quick look yesterday with no luck. Also, my method is a bit sloppy, out of necessity. I'm using the outside diameter of the base of the case, which does define the upper limit of the bolt thrust, but the actual thrust is going to be related to the maximum inside diameter of the case, which is not only smaller (probably enough to make the real max bolt thrust closer to 7000 than 7500 pounds-force) but also quite variable. Military ammunition, for example, generally uses thicker cases than civilian ammunition, and so military ammunition will have less bolt thrust at the same pressure.

If you do want to include this information, find me a good source stating that the Contender, or even break-open actions in general, are limited by bolt thrust, and I'll put together a well sourced bit on maximum Contender cartridges; between Cartridges of the World by Barnes and various reloading manuals, I can calculate the approximate bolt thrust of a range of top end Contender cartridges. scot (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rinda

There was a stub on the Ruby stuff which we removed a month or so ago (see the history of Rinda). If you think the previous state of affairs was better you can restore it. Haukur (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. I believe a disambiguation is necessary. Special:WhatLinksHere/Rinda shows a lot of links from computer language articles (now that I think of it, more than 90%), so there is an interest in the tuple space variant. Disambiguation seems necessary.
As for the article itself: The old article [1] does not contain more information than the sentence on the disambiguation page, so I'd leave it at that. Tierlieb (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Judging by the links I probably jumped the gun in removing the tuple space stuff. Your current setup seems reasonable. Haukur (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)