User talk:Jackehammond/Archive 13

Persian Gulf naming

Hi, Jack. Thanks for your message re. the naming of the Persian Gulf. Yes, I am aware that there are some who insist on calling it by an incorrect name... however, the name of a geographic location is not something to be changed just because someone feels like it. Just imagine the global chaos if everyone did that. People living on the northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico can't just wake up one morning and start calling it the Gulf of Louisiana, expecting the rest of the worls to follow suit! There's an almost endless potential list of fake names that I can come up with following that rule !!! On the other hand, the incorrect naming of the Persian Gulf by some Arab nations is a politically-charged topic going on for a number of years now. In my humble opinion, sir, we all already have enough to worry about in the world, without having to remember many different names for each geographic feature. All the best, Kamran the Great (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

USS Hourston antiair armament in 1941/42

Folks,

Please see the link above the section title in blue. On the article page it list the Houston as having a bunch of 20mm Oerlkions and 40mm Bofors. The problem is the Oerlikon just begun production for the British in 1941 and the US Army and US Navy were still struggling as to whether they wanted the Bofors -- the Swedes sent blue prints that called for a lot of individual filing, etc. that defeats mass production. I know that almost all US Warships had .50 caliber water cooled machine guns and 1.1 inch caliber cannons in Quad mounts. But I don't have the references. Can anyone find a reference that gives the correct armament of the Houston -- ie I have a reference where it was fitted with four 1.1 inch quad mounts in the Philippines. But nothing else. Thanks for any help. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

.

Doesn't answer the question, Jack, but you may find this interesting: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_1-1-75_mk1.htm BTW, thanks for the information on the French Air Force in 1940. There is also an article online from Air University that discusses their air force in 1940; sounds like they had bad doctrine re: support of ground troops which no doubt led to the perception by ground troops that the air force was missing in action. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing

Thanks for your edits to Gastric antral vascular ectasia. Bearian (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Steam Power

Thanks for your comments - the steam powered tank sounds intriguing. I must investigate it further. With oil prices slowly creeping skywards, maybe steam will make a comeback, who knows. One of the papers I read suggested that if steam had had the 50 or so years of development the petrol engine had had at that time, they might have been more viable. Abner Doble represented the pinnacle of steam development in the 1920's and the Pontiac's were developed using his principles from that time. NealeFamily (talk) 06:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a 1960s AFV article on steam powered tanks. The article also deals with vehicle steam power after WW1 ended. Just click the pages a second time and they will expand to where you can read the page. Check the modern steam engine on the fifth page. Can you believe you can hold with two hands a 1000hp motor -- sans the boiler. Best Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jack - I think I found the article on another site - your link said the page had been deleted. I found Doble had been involved with two of the WW1 tanks - they used two Doble Detroit engines in each tank, although neither got past the prototype stage. I have updated the Doble steam car article with that information and reference. I see there is another firm in the States looking at a steam turbine for a current tank as well. NealeFamily (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Neale, Sorry for the misunderstanding, but line was not deleted, but I feared without a reference a Wiki Fanatic would have come along years later and deleted that important information on the 1969 Pontiac steam car. Again sorry for the misunderstanding.

I found the magazine and issue those copies of the pages I posted to you. The magazine is AFV-G2 published by Baron Publishing Company for the "Military Vehicle Enthusiasts" organization. The issue is Vol. 5, No. 4/April-May 1975, pages 6-12 titled Steam Power for Tanks by Col. Robert J. Icks (US Army retired). ISSN 0001-124X. Let's see a Wiki Fanatic dispute all this reference information! Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Goofed!!! With a Photo Bucket account you can have an album designated, a public album, but if any of the albums in the chain proceeding it are private it is still private. Here are the page links: Page 1; Page 2; Page 3; Page 4; Page 5; Page 6; Page 7. The page numbers just indicate their order, not the actual page numbers. Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jack - that was the article I found, but it was a copy without the illustrations.Fascinating stuff - Regards NealeFamily (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Aviation Special Interest Group (AVSIG)

Dear Jack, I have added some references to the article on The Aviation Special Interest Group (AVSIG) and slightly reworded it to try to help keep the article. I have also registed my view that it should be kept at its : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Aviation Special Interest Group (AVSIG).

I have also added it to the deletion sorting thing to solicit a more informed audience for the debate Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

Dear Jack I have replied to you here: User_talk:Msrasnw#Thanks_for_trying_to_prevent_deletion_of_AVSIG_page. I have also added another little ref. I found to the deletion debate and I see another user -Palmpilot900 has also added some nice information but I guess the reliability of these sources will be raised as an issue. - Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC))

PS: Do you have anymore sources for AVSIG sources that aren't online for example. Egs might be old published magazines or books or other reliable sources? Sources for wikipedia just have to be reliable thy don't have to be online. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC))

Dear Msr-w, No I don't. But I have told Mike (AVSIG manager) that if anyone has any information -- other than forums -- to send it to Richard (PalmPilot) or myself. Mike is also telling members not to help him by 'Gilding the Lily' and joining WP just to vote, unless they have been a WP editor previously and for some time. To help by just watching, and let you do your job. Also in the case of Mike being banned from editing, it was an innocent mistake, he did not know you could not use organization names in screen names on WP. Usually, when this happens, adm. just tell them to get another screen name, not ban them. And Mike has requested a new screen name and to be unblocked. For some strange reason -- I have a good hunch why -- his request has been stalled. And also Mike has been accused of basically packing the vote on the deletion with supporters. Now I don't know about Richard, but I have been an editor for several years and editing a lot. Look at my contributes. And I disclosed my status as a member or AVSIG when I voted. Again thanks for your help. Soon it may be best to drop this and go back to editing. It is getting nasty on one side. As I am going to tell Bushranger in one last comment: There is Something Rotten in Denmark. Best Jack Jackehammond (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the reliability of my sources, I have no idea of the credentials of spoke.com, but Tony Broderick's tenure at the FAA is a matter of public record and therefore verifiable if anyone chooses to question it. As for Avweb, that is a respected online aviation news source. A Wikipedia search shows that it is cited hundreds of times in various Wikipedia aviation articles. And I will be very surprised if anyone claims that the Smithsonian's Air and Space magazine is not a reliable source on aviation topics. --Palmpilot900 (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)