Talk:Cyclorotor

History

A detailed history for cyclorotors is needed here. I will spend some time on this in the coming months, but would appreciate contributions (especially on marine applications). CyclogyroCrasher (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be quite a bit wrong with the history. Torqueo was tested in 1928 ( not 1938. at the turn of the decade this propulsion system was an established product. see: There is no 1938 Paris world expo. Thus the Voigt Schneider paragraph needs to be fixed and moved up one position.ZwergAlw (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Citations and potential conflict of interest, Sept. 2016

I am having several issues with the additions by Aeronauticengineer67 and IP 77.99.27.221 just prior to his/her registration:

1. The citations are largely opportunistic, i.e. they do not support any substantial contribution to the topic. Instead they seem to be sprinkled here and there with statements such as "An important analysis" "an effective energy assessment" "produced an important advancement" etc. These (systematically positive) qualifications blatantly go against NPV. But most importantly there is no substantial addition to the article, just mentions that aspects of cyclorotors are described in external referenced articles.
2. The citations are all focused on the CROP EU project (or in support of the statement that "the preliminary results of CROP Project have been confirmed by several researchers")
3. This problem has come up at Talk:Cyclogyro already with the same sources added in the same way, and already over there there was WP:COI. It is hard to imagine that an IP and a first-time contributor, writing only in Cyclorotor and Coandă effect, contributing principally citations of participants of the EU CROP and ACHEON projects (e.g. Páscoa, Trancossi) are unrelated to the project.

@Aeronauticengineer67:, if you have any conflict of interest with respect to this article or the sources you are adding, please disclose it. I am reverting this day’s edits so they can be discussed here. Thanks. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ariadacapo: IP solution. The IP is a public IP of a University. This is not my primary ID but I declare everything related to my interest in Wikipedia in my presentation. I think that you are a clear conflict of interest. Adding sources or for example that can be freely accessed as I'm doing is not in conflict of interest. Why you do not try to improve the argument by mean of more effective references. I use this ID just because I'm be advised by colleagues bot US and Eu, i'm English, about your behavior. I'm coauthor of only one of the papers added and if you like I can declare. If you have any conflict of interest with respect to this article or the sources you are adding, please disclose it, or racist, political, ideological reason you are pleased of declaring it. Or if you have any reason connected to your professional or economical activity, I hope that you declare. I'just trying to add reference and to implement an argument that is clearly dated and in the text does not include fundamental and accessible advancements on an argument that is not my main domain of activity. talk 18:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ariadacapo:Dear idiot, this voice is a mess. Your ideological stupidity is well known, also my student of last academic year has discovered. I teach in a University. You continue to maintain a wiki voice that probably you have written notwithstanding it contains errors that are completely unacceptable to a person with an acceptable level of culture such as:

1. At low Reynolds numbers, increased relative fluid viscous forces cause wings to stall at lower angles of attack and produce lower maximum lift coefficients. (it is a fundamental error try to study some aerodynamics fro accurate sources. Who has marked you more than 5/100 on aerodynamics? have you some fluid related competences?).
2. At a sufficiently high advance ratio the retreating blade will stall from excessive angle of attack while flapping to a higher angle to maintain even lift over the rotor disk. Cyclorotos bypass this problem via a horizontal axis of rotation and operating at comparatively low blade tip speed. The horizontal axis of rotation always provides an advancing blade, and the capability to produce lift, on every rotor thereby bypassing the helicopter advance ratio limitation. (if you do no correctly explain this sentence by saying that it is a vector composition it is matamatically erroneous).
3. At a sufficiently high advance ratio the retreating blade will stall from excessive angle of attack while flapping to a higher angle to maintain even lift over the rotor disk. Cyclorotos bypass this problem via a horizontal axis of rotation and operating at comparatively low blade tip speed. The horizontal axis of rotation always provides an advancing blade, and the capability to produce lift, on every rotor thereby bypassing the helicopter advance ratio limitation. (Stated in this way the sentence is subject to be misunderstood and lacks of references and clarity).
4. Small birds, insects, and cyclorotors bypass this problem by quickly increasing and then decreasing blade angle of attack, which temporarily delays stall and achieves a high lift coefficient. (Have you ever studied some about bioinspired mechanisms? they can explain you that this sentence is false.)

Correcting this evident error (also a child knows that) I have clearly explained the reasons why the activity of CROP Project has a great importance. I am just a colleague of Pascoa. Pascoa with inexperience has tried to cite himself not in a correct way. But the importance of this project to which I have not participated is worldwide recognized, for the integration of boundary layer controls into cyclorotor. It is the only possibility to reduce the oscillation in perms of pitch angle and then as I presume you could know the only possibility of having future cyclototoidal aircrafts. But I do not know why I an explaining this. It if evident your conflict of interest on the argument or your personal hate against somebody. Sorry I will came back to verify deeply all your contributions, because your ideological hate and the errors that you do not correct or that you allow continuing demonstrates hat you are really in conflict of interest or you are just an ignorant. I will be just glad to verify with my normal ID all your contributions because my e similar unacceptable errors or personal interests could be evident in them. Allowing such errors could have another explication. Your English is so poor that you do not understand the sense of the sentences. It is another hypothesis... The above ones seems more credible from your behavior. He also demonstrates an evident incapacity. The additions to the history has been done by experience in using wiki as a source of informations that is something completely obscure for Ariadacapo because he demonstrates to be here to monitor some wiki vices for unclear personal or not declarable interests and not for the progress of the enciclopedia. Kind regards Aeronauticengineer67

OK.

• The statements qualifying the importance/relevance of the works quoted must be sourced. When you write that (emphasis mine)
  

"This advantage inspired significant research of cyclorotors for micro-air-vehicle applications.[17][18][19][20]"

"Another promising direction of research in this direction relates to …[27][28]"

"Those results have been improved by EU FP7 CROP Project results."

"A further advance through the solution of the structural problems of cyclorotors has been performed recently…

"An important analysis of cyclorotoidal propulsion on airships has recently produced inside the EU FP7 CROP Project…

none of those those statements is neutral, nor backed by a source.

• As a colleague of Pascoa, as the author of one of the papers you cite, and as the mentor of someone who has already had trouble with COI here (do I understand that correctly?) you are in clear conflict of interest when you quote and assess his work and yours. This does not bar you from editing this article, but it means you should exercise caution and look for consensus when citing works. It means you should certainly not add content such as the sentences above —which add nothing to the actual topic of cyclorotors, just mention that great research is performed on the topic— nor revert edits wholesale without an attempt to discuss.
• As you requested, I have disclosed my own COI areas on my user page. I don’t believe I am in conflict here.
• The way you address me is not acceptable here. See WP:CIVIL. You must either change that, or leave.

Ariadacapo (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I have now removed the most problematic elements from the page (the edit summary got lost and appears in the next edit). Ariadacapo (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

a serious good faith mistake

WP:SPA User:CyclogyroCrasher redirected the article Voith Schneider Propeller here, about a year ago.

Near as I can tell this brand new user performed this redirection, something which clearly should have been discussed prior, without discussing whether this was a good idea, with anyone.

I think this merge was an absolutely terrible idea. The Voith Schneider Propeller certainly merits its own article.

Only a fraction of the material originally in the original article on the Voith Schneider Propeller system was included here. How could this possibly be an improvement?

This merge is yet another instance of a no-doubt well-meaning person who doesn't have a clue as to how the wikipedia best serves its readers. We could have something that included every single scrap of information that is in the wikipedia, but all crammed into one linear file. While this would have all the same information, it would be completely useless, as it would be impossible for readers to find the information that would be useful to them.

Small articles, that only tackle a single topic, work best.

Fans of merging commonly want to take articles on two, or three, or more related topics, and shoehorn them into a single omnibus article. But topics don't work that way. Most topics are related to a bunch of other topics that aren't closely related to one another. Sure, the topic of Voith Schneider propellers is related to other forms of cycloidal drives, like helicopters. But it is also related to the Z-drive, because both drives can change direction very rapidly, and eliminate the need for a traditional rudder. Someone could argue that Z-Drive and Voith Scheider propellse should be in a single article. Someone else might argue that these two drives, and conventional propellers, and stern-wheel and side-wheel propulsion should all be merged into a single article on marine propulsion.

Clearly Voith Schedier propellers can't be merged and redirected to three separate articles.

The best solution is to have a relatively short article on the general topic of cycloidal drives, and another relatively short article on the general topic of marine propulsion, that have a series on {{main}} or {{see also}} calls to the more narrow articles on the specific topic.

We shouldn't act like dictators. We shouldn't act like we are so smart we know the only good routes our readers should follow to get at the information we present. Readers should be free to transit our information, jump from link to link, following a path we would never have dreamed they might follow.

Voith Schneider drives are often used in minesweepers, because of their low audio signature. Consider a young reader who develops a sudden interest in minesweeping vessels. When they read that they often propelled using Voith Schneider propellers, they want to follow a link directly to an article that is about Voith Schneider propellers, and nothing else.

If no one can defend this undiscussed merge, after a reasonable period of time, I think the redirection should be undone. Geo Swan (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Oh yeah, a side effect of this kind of ill-advised merge is that information that was on-topic when the topic had its own standalone article is at risk of being excised when someone who is not aware that the information can from a merge, deletes it as being "off-topic". Geo Swan (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Move page to cycloidal rotor ?

It seems to me that the word cyclorotor is very seldom used to designate what is rather best described as a cycloidal rotor. Anyone opposes me moving the page to the appropriate title? Louis (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)