Comment. It's a wonderful image with good flow, but it's ridiculously small! Is there a chance that it could be made bigger? Jared(t) 00:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bigger Isn't Always Better For these things, bigger isn't always better. This small image was a recent featured picture was a featured picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cafe Nervosa (talk • contribs) 16:56, July 30, 2007
support--Mbz1 01:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
support smooth, size is fine. Debivort 03:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article is a three-sentence stub. 129.215.191.74 03:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately true, but how is that relevant? Also, remember to log in if you decide to vote. Debivort 06:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For something which is rendered, unlike photographed, it should be easy to create a higher res version of this image. Obviously animations don't need to hit the 1000pixel mark, but I'd like to see this at least 500px, preferably 600px in size. Very nice otherwise --Fir0002 07:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support andcomment. I like the animation as is, but it is supposed to point out a mechanism that translates circular motion into linear motion. It is not that obvious where the circular and linear motion takes place: perhaps on every alternate iteration of the movement, appropriate parts of the machine could trace out the circular and linear motion. Spikebrennan 10:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Oppose Change of vote because the more I think about this, the more I don't like the fact that the circular motion is not obviously shown. Per Vanished user's comments, perhaps the additional mechanical parts of the device can be added.Support alternative 2--this version addresses my concerns.Spikebrennan 21:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't understand what I'm looking at. If a caption is written that explains what this thing is doing beyond looking cool, I will happily support. --TotoBaggins 13:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As mentioned by Spike, I don't see the circular motion. The animation or caption has to clearer. The stubby page doesn't help much either. Jumpingcheese 15:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After staring that the animation for a while, I'm guessing the hinges of the green squares are where the circular motion comes into play. If that's right, maybe outlining the movement so that it's clearer? Jumpingcheese 16:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Part of the Sarrus linkage is missing. We don't even see the rotating part. See [1]Vanished usertalk 16:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what Vanished user is saying. Showing a trace of the circular motion would improve this a lot like at Chebyshev linkage. I now oppose since the trace is not included. Cafe Nervosa 18:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Without the rotating part or some acknowledgement of the rotating part this makes no sense. The article it is attached to is not in a state ready to recieve a featured picture either, it needs significant expansion before it will be ready. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 12:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. What in the world am I looking at?--HereToHelp 15:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hé... just found out about this, some constructive criticism :-). Will try to respond to some:
Like Fir0002 says, you can indeed easily re-render these kind of images as large as you like, I had to consider download time however. And though ImageMagick can scale animated gifs down, it sometimes produces weird results (like here).
Jumping-cheese is right; the hinges of the green squares represent the circular motion part. The connected rod with wheel, as can be seen on the link of Vanished user, are not part of the Sarrus linkage. They are just there for demonstration purposes and/or an example of how it "could" be done. The thing you’re looking at is the thing Pierre Frédéric Sarrus invented.
Unfortunately, it’s pretty clear that the working principle the image tries to get across by itself... is pretty much unclear.
Thanks for the comments & suggestions. --Van helsing 16:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for creating the image in the first place. It's a good image-- I just think that by addressing the concerns, it can be elevated to FP status. Spikebrennan 19:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grey lines showing the linear and circular motion will make the image much more understandable. Very nice animation nevertheless. =) Jumpingcheese 05:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With proper edits, taking into account suggestions above, I would love to support this image. Zakolantern 23:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AlternativeI’m trying, but regardless how often I refresh or purge, the server doesn’t give me a thumbed version back for the last 14 hours to show here (any suggestions on this issue?) (Apparently patience is the answer, or does the namespace have anything to do with it?) I’ve taken up the resolution and image purpose concerns. Tripled the resolution from 180×200px to 540×600px as suggested by Jared and Fir0002, I think that’s pretty much borderline for smooth movement without stutter (at least on my 3 year old pc with IE7). Also added grey lines indicating the linear and circular motion as Jumping cheese suggested. Any further suggestions appreciated of course. But again, can’t get that thumb. --Van helsing 11:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this animation is definitely on its way. I believe that you only need one vertical line, not three (the arc indicating the circular motion is definitely helpful). Also, on my computer, the full-view version seems jerky-- is this just my computer, or is it a low framerate?Spikebrennan 14:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting a very jerky animation too, but I'm guessing that has more to do with the computer than the animation. thegreen J Are you green? 18:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Had different results on different pc’s as well today, first looked okay, but then slows down building up each next frame with each cycle. Think 90 frames of 70 milliseconds with this size are even too much for modern computers. I re-rendered one on 360×400px (in between the small and big), with only one straight movement line (360×400px image). Is this one jerky as well? --Van helsing 20:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Full-res version works perfectly fine on my 3 year old computer... --antilivedT | C | G 05:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment The purpose of the sarrus linkage is to turn rotary motion into back-and-forth motion. Showing that part of it traces out a 1/4th circle isn't the same as rotary motion. I think you need the parts as per that photo. Vanished usertalk 15:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean and I‘m tempted to try it. When somebody talks about circular/rotary motion I’m thinking full rotation. But if you look at similar mechanisms like Watt's linkage, Peaucellier-Lipkin linkage, Parallel motion and even Chebyshev linkage (which only works for half a rotation), full rotation wasn’t apparently what the guys had in mind those days. None of them can actually do a full rotation to straight line. It’s probably cheaper to use a simple crankshaft with reference guide ways in these cases. --Van helsing 20:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 09:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For something which is rendered, unlike photographed, it should be easy to create a higher res version of this image. Obviously animations don't need to hit the 1000pixel mark, but I'd like to see this at least 500px, preferably 600px in size. Very nice otherwise --Fir0002 07:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
![[1]](http://pergatory.mit.edu/2.007/contests/2000_sojourner/lectures/Lecture02/Image34.gif){kind=link}
