User talk:TomTheHand/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archives
January 2005 – April 2006 May 2006 – June 2006 June 2006 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – October 2006 November 2006 – December 2006 December 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – May 2007 May 2007 – June 2007 June 2007 – September 2007 September 2007 – November 2007 November 2007 – December 2007 December 2007 – January 2007

unwelcomed message from me

I am asking you to at least look at two cases: I know you don't want to hear from me but maybe you will do this for Wikipedia.

If you would just look at the following cases: -- I am not asking you to enter into the fray.

1. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival
2. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse

I was cleared of being a Sock Puppet through CheckUser on October 26, 2005.

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mattisse

I am hoping you might be imterested because of your comments on my talk page regarding the citation issues:[1] which involve the same people and issues now.

Other issues involved in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival are

• Check Rosencomet linkspamming - They are Ronsencomet's festivals.
• performers at Starwood: [2].
• performers at Winterstar Symposium:[3].
• Performers at Association for Consciousness Exploration:[4].

• On each of these pages there are internal links to Starwood and also exteranl links to the pages to the Starwood site:[5].
• Starwood Festival
• Brushwood Folklore Center
• WinterStar Symposium
• Winterstar Symposium
• SpiritDrum Festival
• Trance Mission

Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 16:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Mattisse, I'd rather not get involved in the mediation case; I'm just not cool-headed enough to mediate anything. I signed the "outside view" of your RFC, which seems to summarize the situation well; I think the way you get treated is irrational and terrible and I know you're editing Wikipedia in good faith.

Please don't hesitate to post here for any reason. In reference to the discussion directly above this one, Ekajati presented some facts that looked suspicious, and I agreed that a RFCU was appropriate. I don't think an RFCU is a bad thing; if you're innocent, as you were, it exonerates you. I hope that I made it clear above that I supported a block if and only if Timmy12 was a sock puppet, as sockpuppetry bothers me a lot. I think your sockpuppetry in the past was a serious mistake, but as long as it doesn't happen again people need to stop trying to punish you for it. TomTheHand 18:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate and value your support. The RFC was surprising in that I did get some support when I didn't expect any except from Salix Alba and BostonMA. Hopefully you will have faith in me. You have helped me tremedously by sticking up for me over the sourcing issues. I do thank you. Mattisse(talk) 03:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Fallout graph

Hello, Cadmium! Did you create Image:Totalexternaldoseratecher.jpg, or just fetch it from an external source? If you are the creator, someone on the talk page for the image requested clarification on the units of the Y axis. I get the impression, from reading the title of the Y axis, that it's a unitless ratio comparing the dose rate at Chernobyl to, perhaps, normal background radiation or something. I'd like to clarify that point on the picture's description, but I'm writing you to make sure I'm correct before I touch anything. Let me know! Thanks! TomTheHand 19:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, aboutthe gamma dose rate vs time graph. I drew it. The diagram does not need units as the y axis is an expression of a unitless ratio of the dose on day x to day 1. The absolute dose rate will depend on how much fallout is deposited in the site. Not that the graph is made using some approixations, such as the assumption that no separation of the different chemical elements in the fallout occurs. This is not quite true in real life. But to add this separation would be very very hard.

None of the graphs of dose rate which I have drawn as functions of time are absolute dose rates they are all relative dose rates.Cadmium

I don't quite understand. You said that the y axis is a ratio of the dose on day x to day 1. Wouldn't that mean that at day 1, the leftmost portion of the graph, the ratio should be 1:1? TomTheHand 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It is best to think of it the other way arround, the level one is normally at some point in the distant future (oftein off the x axis).Cadmium

So it's not the ratio of day x to day 1, but rather the ratio of day x to some point in the future after all the decay has occurred? Or perhaps the ratio between day x and day -1 (the day before the accident)? TomTheHand 21:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The number is not important, by changing the level of fallout (amount which arrived on day one) the value will change. The important thing is the ratio of the dose on day one to day x. Also the shape of the graph is important.Cadmium

I'm sorry, I'm not expressing myself well. I'm trying to understand what you mean by day one and day x. Could you please explain? I thought that "day one" is the day of maximum radiation; the day of the accident. I thought "day x" is whatever point I'm looking at on the x-axis. However, according to what you're saying I must be mistaken. TomTheHand 22:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Day one (and sometimes zero hour) is the time of greatest exposure, that is correct. The shape of the graph is the important thing, all doses are realtive to each other.Cadmium

Alright, cool. Then why isn't the y-axis value equal to 1 at day 1? If it's the ratio of the dose on day x to day one, then when day x = 1 the ratio should be 1:1, right? TomTheHand 21:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Rebecca#Concerns

You previously posted concerns on User_talk:Rebecca. You may wish to add them to User_talk:Rebecca#Concerns. -- Jreferee 22:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Bill Haley unsourced

A Bill Haley person says on the talk page that using a short list at the end method of sourcing is enough. Will you stand behind me on this one? Mattisse(talk) 01:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Mattisse,

I apologize for not responding to this in a timely fashion. I've been sick since last Friday and I'm just now recovering, so I haven't been contributing much to Wikipedia. My head's been much too foggy to get into any kind of real debate.

Though I agree that Bill Haley would be improved by inline citation, it's kind of a "gray area" that I'd rather not get in a fight about. I generally feel that listing a bunch of sources at the end of an article does not satisfy WP:V. WP:V states that any reader should be able to easily verify any fact in the article. Generally, listing sources at the end does not allow this, because it's unreasonable to ask a reader to track down three or more books and look through each of them to find the fact.

In addition, I feel it leads to a "good enough" attitude, where an article lists a few sources, therefore it must satisfy WP:V. In reality, the article generally existed in an unsourced form for a long time before one conscientious editor made some edits and added sources for them at the end. Those edits are theoretically sourced, but all the previous ones aren't, and subsequent edits aren't sourced either.

People constantly claim that WP:CITE is a guideline, not a policy, and that's true. Nevertheless, I feel that following that guideline is the best way to conform to the WP:V policy.

However, I don't feel comfortable getting involved in Bill Haley. Why? Well, 23skidoo pretty much rewrote the article, and cited sources for his rewrite. Since then, the content of the article hasn't changed substantially. It's still hard to verify any one fact, but it's not one of those articles that had a couple of sources posted three years ago, has had a ton of content added since then, and is still claimed to be adequately sourced.

I hope you understand. It's not that I disagree, but these debates are hard on me and I think both your efforts and mine would be better spent elsewhere, on a more egregious violation of WP:V. TomTheHand 16:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks! Hope you feel better. Mattisse(talk) 16:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm doing a lot better, and hope to be near-100% by Thanksgiving. One thing I might suggest is adding fact tags to various facts that were not added in 23skidoo's rewrite. For example, I think the first paragraph of his biography, which contains a lot of "some sources say this, but they're wrong," is in need of verification. If we're discounting some sources in favor of others, we need to state which ones are right and why they're better. I'll gladly back you up if anyone removes fact tags from the article. TomTheHand 16:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Copperchair

Since several posts to WP:AN/I haven't produced any results, I'm giving WP:AE a try. I posted a report there about Copperchair's frequent sockpuppetry. [6] Hopefully they'll be able/willing to bump up Copperchair's 1 year + 1 day block and do something about the frequent generation of new sockpuppets from the 190.10.0.XX IP range. --Bobblehead 04:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, wasn't as successful as I'd hope. Thatcher131 updated the block on Copperchair's account and extended it to Nov 22, 2007. [7] --Bobblehead 21:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject NCSU

Since you went to NCSU, maybe you should join WikiProject NCSU, which was started today. --Shanedidona 18:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

T-800

I know you want to remove all of the OR from the Terminator articles. So I figured I'd ask, since no one is responding on the T-800 talk page. I haven't found one hard reference for the name T-800 or T-850. The first two movies refer to him as a Cyberdyne Systems Model 101. The third refers to him as a T-101. All pages mentioning the T-800 are fan pages with no references to canonical sources either. If I'm going to start changing every page that mentions the T-800, I want to make sure I'm in the right. ColdFusion650 23:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I haven't watched the movies lately, but T-800 is so prevalent that I assumed it must be in them somewhere. If it's not, it should definitely be removed. I would suggest that you change one prominent page first, and see if anyone gets upset and/or comes up with a source, before changing every page that mentions it. Without a canonical source, it's got no business in our articles. TomTheHand 00:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed all references in the main T-800 article, but I didn't change the name, as that would require setting up redirects and all that stuff. Anyway, hopefully this will get someone's attention. ColdFusion650 00:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

T12 & Viaducts

I'm curious about this edit: [8]. You linked to viaduct, an article which has no mention of military uses of the term. I assume from context that a viaduct in this use refers to something like a reinforced concrete tunnel used to transport personnel and equipment, but I'm not able to find an article on anything like this. Maybe you could do some rooting around? If there really is no article on this, the example should be unlinked or removed. I'm working on the assumption that you're not talking about the type of bridge here, since I can't see a bridge meriting a bunker buster. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 00:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about a bridge. The bombs in question were supposed to penetrate into the ground near the viaduct, explode (causing an earthquake-like effect), and cause pillars of the viaduct to collapse. It's my understanding that because of their durability and because they were relatively small (narrow) targets it was virtually impossible to destroy them conventionally (by simply dropping bombs on them). TomTheHand 01:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Check out Grand Slam bomb for more info; it talks about actual usage of the bombs against viaducts. It seems that in addition to an "earthquake" effect, the explosion deep underground would create a cavern and the foundation of the viaduct would collapse into it. TomTheHand 03:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I suppose that makes less sense now in the days of smart bombs, but I will add a brief explanation to this effect to the article. Thank you. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 05:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Bugatti 3000 hp

Thanks for talking through the bugatti 3000 hp thing. I hadent looked at it that way. I dont have a problem not having it in the article! Keep up the great work it is much appreciated Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Chris! Sorry for being so stubborn about it, but I feel like I had solid reasons. TomTheHand 03:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Bugatti vs McLaren F1 (Trivia Section)

Hello. You said not to make the edit I made without a source. Well, wikipedia is the source. All you have to do is go to the Veyron page and the McLaren F1 page, look at the 0-100 and 0-100 MPH times, and do some simple arithmetic. The acceration data does NOT support Clarksons claim. Period. I'm not providing any new data, thus I have nothing to "source". I'm just looking at the data and explaining what it means and how this data contradicts Clarkson.

Wikipedia itself cannot be cited as a source, and you cannot just cherry-pick a 0-200 figure from one source, 0-100 and 0-200 figures from another, do a little math, and say that Clarkson is wrong. TomTheHand 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, have added external citations to support the acceleration numbers I am using. I'm not saying Clarkson is wrong, by the way, I'm saying that published data contradicts this claim. Whether to believe Clarkson or the data is left as an exercise for the reader. After further research, there is no official 0-200MPH time for the Veyron, as Bugatti uses km/h. I've updated my edit to more fairly show "both sides" of the story. Personally, I think everyone will be better served if my edit remains, though if you feel it's not "official" enough, add some sort of disclaimer as such, rather than tweaking it entirely. After all, why should we just take "Clarkson's word" for it?

I've removed your addition again. Getting figures from all over the place and doing your own math to prove or disprove someone's statement is called original research and isn't allowed on Wikipedia. We're not taking "Clarkson's word" as gospel; we're reporting what Clarkson said. TomTheHand 04:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct sir. I have added a short statement with a reference to a source in such a way that it is no longer "original research". The source I'm using is the same source listed earlier in the Veyron's entry for the performance figures in the Final Numbers section.

Looks good to me. TomTheHand 13:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and guidance in this matter. As an aside, what should be done when valid sources provide conflicting information? Which wikipedia rule handles such a situation? IMHO, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost, thus, when there is conflicting information, you have two options - 1) Cite each/all sources and note the conflict, leaving it to the reader which source to "believe" or, 2) Don't cite ANY of the conflicting sources. What say you?

If both sources are reliable, I believe it's best to cite each and note the conflict. Note that I don't believe you should "stretch" at all to make one fact correlate to another; I think that pulling together different acceleration figures and interpreting them yourself is original research but I think what you've done just now is right on the mark. TomTheHand 14:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

Noticed that you were the architect - in a manner of speaking of some maritime categories for Australia - you may or may not therefore be interested to know that there is now Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian maritime history SatuSuro 08:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Flag of the Netherlands

Tom, below is the draft of my article. However, I have problems finding the lay out and everything. Hopefully you will show me where I can find alle relevant topics, in order for me to post the article in a decent way. Once again, do not mind the English yet, as I dod not revise everything, and obviously my own English will not be entirely correct.

The national flag of the Netherlands, with its three equal horizontal bands colored red (top), white and blue is the oldest tricolor still in use today. However it was not the country's first flag. At the end of the 15th century, 17 Dutch provinces were united by Charles V. As a result hereof, one common flag came into use for joint expeditions. This was the banner of the Lord of Burgundy, which consisted of a white field charged with two bundles of red laurel branches in the form of an X, with flames issuing from the intersection: the Cross of Burgundy. Under the later House of Austria, this flag remained in use.

Cross of Burgundy The provinces of the Low Countries, however, rose in revolt against King Philip II of Spain, (the Eighty Years' War) and the Prince of Orange placed himself at the head of the rebels. The Watergeuzen (the Dutch resistance whom possessed a letter of marque and reprisal issued by the Prince of Orange, thus granting them a formal status), acting on his instructions, harassed the enemy everywhere they could and they did this under a tricolor Orange White Blue ("Orange, Blanche, Bleu", or in Dutch: "Oranje, Wit, Blauw"), the colors of the Prince's coat of arms. It was thus a flag easily associated with the leader of the rebellion, and the association was also expressed in the name: "the Prince's Flag." However, for reasons unknown, the color orange turned into red, most likely as a result of the poor quality of the dye. In an atlas of Kittensteyn, the first Red White and Blue flag can be seen on a painting imaging a battle between the Watergeuzen and the Spaniards. This date was early on in the Eighty Years' War, the Dutch war of independence. Hence 1572 is the official year of the introduction of the Dutch national banner. (1)This was commemorated in the Netherlands by the issue of a post stamp in 1972. However, the top color remains a mystery, as it is depicted in both orange and red, as of said date.

The Prince's Flag The flag had three, sometimes six or even nine horizontal stripes, but also took the form of rays projecting from a circle. The colors were used without any fixed order and it was only towards the end of the 16th century that any degree of uniformity appeared. After 1630, the orange stripe was gradually replaced by a red one, as paintings of that time indicate. Since there was likely no political reason for introducing a non-orange motive in the flag, the probable reason is that orange and blue are faint colors and more difficult to distinguish than red and dark blue, especially at sea. Another explanation is that the orange was originally made of natural/herbal yellow and red. The yellow color faded out first, leaving a red strip. The orange-white-blue flag, however, continued to be flown as well and in later times formed the basis for the former South African flag. In addition to the two main flags, a third official flag, that of the States-General, came into being, although it never assumed the importance of the tricolor. Originally it consisted of the red lion of the province of Holland, taken from its coat of arms, on a gold field, holding a sword and seven arrows, and later, of a gold lion on a red field.(See the page on the Coat of arms of the Netherlands.) It marked no contradistinction to the Prince's flag and, in old paintings of ships and sea battles, both flags may be seen flying harmoniously side by side, thus illustrating the complex form of government with its two centers of authority: the Stadhouder (who was always a member of the House of Orange) and the States General. The Batavian Republic On January 18, 1795 stadtholder William V fled to England. One day later, the Batavian Revolution was proclaimed. This occurred in the aftermath of The French Revolution (1789), which had a tremendous impact on Europe. The official banner of the Batavian Republic became red-white-blue, with a crest in the upper left corner.

Flag of the Batavian Republic (1795-1806) (2) The revolution in the Netherlands, in the last decade of the 18th century, and the conquest by the French also resulted in another flag. The name "Prince's Flag" was forbidden. There came no change in the red-white-blue (colors to which the French "liberators" were kindly disposed, analogous as they were to their own tricolor), but in 1796 the red division of the flag was embellished with the figure of a Netherlands maiden, with a lion at her feet, in the upper left corner. In one hand she bore a shield with the Roman fasces and in the other a lance crowned with the cap of liberty. This flag had a life as short as that of the Batavian Republic for which it was created. Louis Bonaparte, made king of Holland by his brother the Emperor Napoleon, wished to pursue a purely Dutch policy and to respect national sentiments as much as possible. He removed the maiden of freedom from the flag and restored the old tricolor. His pro-Dutch policies led to conflicts with his brother, however, and the Netherlands were incorporated into the French Empire. Its flag was replaced by the imperial emblems. In 1813, the Netherlands regained its independence and the Prince of Orange returned to the country from England. The tricolor reappeared from the attics and cellars where it had remained hidden for three years, waiting for better times. In order to demonstrate the attachment of the people to the House of Orange, the orange-white-blue and the red-white-blue fluttered together on the roofs. Which of the two flags should be the national flag was left undecided. Until recently, both had the same rights, although the red-white-blue was generally given precedence. This is apparent from the fact that it was not only hoisted on public buildings but also chosen by the first King as his personal standard, showing the national coat of arms on the white stripes. From the same period dates the custom, prescribed spontaneously by popular will, to fly an orange pennant together with the national flag as a sign of allegiance of the people to the House of Orange. On February 19, 1937, a Royal Decree issued by Queen Wilhelmina finally laid down the red, white and blue colors as the national flag (heraldic colors of bright vermilion, white and cobalt blue). She did this as a response to right wing activists, who claimed the Kingdom should use another flag. However, on special occasions, the Dutch add an orange banner above their national flag, to honor their royal family. This makes The Netherlands the only country to alter their national flag.

(2) CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat: 1. You limit your use to a maximum of 5% of the images or content of the website. 2. You quote the author. 3. You quote the website (as "FOTW Flags Of The World website at http://flagspot.net/flags/"). 4. You do not alter in any way the images or the content of the text. 5. You use the material for non-commercial and non-political purposes only. 6. If you distribute the image by a non-Internet way (e.g., floppy disks or CD-ROM) you must add their copyright text on every copy of the medium. 7. If you distribute our materials by a non-Internet way (e.g., floppy disks or CD-ROM) you cannot sell these media Meer details op deze pagina. Afbeelding van Mark Sensen, 1999. Van deze pagina op Flags of the World (FOTW). History of the Netherlands 1384 1494 Bourgondische Nederlanden Prinsbisdom Luik

Prinsdom Stavelot- Malmedy

Hertogdom Bouillon e.a. 1477 1556 Zeventien Provinciën (Bourgondische Kreits)

1556 1795 Spaanse Nederlanden

1581 1795 Verenigde Provinciën Zuidelijke Nederlanden

Oostenrijkse Nederlanden (Nederlandse Staten)

1795 1806 Bataafse Republiek 1795 1804 Eerste Franse Republiek

Koninkrijk Holland

1804 1815 Eerste Franse Keizerrijk

1815 1830 Verenigd Koninkrijk der Nederlanden Groot- Hertogdom Luxemburg

1830 heden Nederland 1830 heden België

Luxemburg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spencer007 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

You're providing sources for when the red-white-blue flag was first used, which is a good addition to the article but which isn't important in our debate. What is important is when the red-white-blue flag became the primary flag. The sources I've seen, including two Dutch government pages, indicate that the orange-white-blue flag was the primary flag until 1630 or so, and your countryman, Rex, agrees. TomTheHand 15:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the above copied from another web site? I see the license agreement there, which is not acceptable for Wikipedia. Our text must be licensed under the GFDL. TomTheHand 15:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As of 1572 the tricolor was officially used, with this exception that both orange and red were used for the same banner. This had caused confusion.

Although the red white blue banner was in use for centuries, I see no point in debating any further as the official decision to use red-white-blue was signed in 1937. My humble suggestion is to use the current flag, as this one may cause confusion with the old South African flag, but will not argue if the other one remains. As for your other remarks, I am desperately seeking a quick way to ensure the article meets the Wikipedia standards. The schedule which is in Dutch came from the Dutch Wikipedia page. It displays the flags in correct order, as shown on flags of the world, and is confirmed by another Dutch website. Spencer 18:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally on Wikipedia we use the period-specific flag. For example, it's too small to see, but the period-specific flag is used for all of the American entries on the table. I'm looking at the Dutch Wikipedia page, and it says the orange-white-blue flag was introduced in 1572, the red-white blue in 1596, and the red-white-blue overtook the orange-white-blue in usage in the mid-1600s. TomTheHand 19:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, the tricolor was oficially introduced in 1572, but after my investigation the conclusion is that even since the red-white-blue became more in use, it was never made official. It has to do with both decreasing sympathy for the House of Orange, and seroiously, the poor quality of the dye they used (sunlight apparently turned orange into red. Especially the navy and the commercial fleet wanted a red banner as it was better visible at sea, but in the same time (17th century) the orange version was used. For example, both the Dutch East India Company and the Dutch West India Company had a red banner, with their respective logo's in the white banner of the flag. Obviously, this was not official, and numerous examples of orange colored flags can be found. Queen Wilhelmina decided to end this matter once and for all in 1937, mostly as a matter of formality. By the way, I can assure you many Dutch people do not know this...

Stale discussion and your {{NPOV}}

In this series of edits, you failed to justify on the talk you seem to be neglecting the ample talk on the template:Groundbreaking submarines. Does this parallell the title objection and change I suggested? Or is this a quibble because some wanted to keep a short list, which judgement, may imperil such a broadbrush title.
   So, would you please add a new section title like '==NOTICE Added {{tlx|NPOV}} and Discussion==' and innaugerate it with your ennumerated gripe(s). Otherwise, I'm inclined to remove it with prejudice, as I hold such templates as slanders on all our work unless so annoted.
   It's kind of hard to address something which is so buried in a long discussion, and the last discussion on POV was back in the summer. No controversial tag like that should ever be added to appear in article space without such a justification... to do so is frankly, an action disrespectful of the time of any fellow editor which comes along afterwords, and is a detriment to wikipedia in all cases which should be resolved ASAP. Giving no clues as to your concerns hardly helps the latter. I could have been thinking on them or discussing them, vice writing this.
   It is best to add such a comment before adding such a template, most template references to the talk can be contrived to point to the specific talk section title. Best regards // FrankB 17:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Groundbreaking submarines for my response. The last discussion on this issue was three days ago. TomTheHand 18:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Roots-Type Supercharger

I don't agree with your last edit. Existing "twin-screw" or screw compressors only achieve 66% efficiency. The new Eaton TVS Roots Type superchargers now achieve up to 76% efficiency and over a much larger area of the map than other boosting devices.

There are compressor maps available at these two sites that you can use to compare technical data.

Eaton Performance: http://www.eatonperformance.com/superchargers/TVS.html

Opcon/Lysholm, the largest screw compressor manufacturer: http://www.opconab.com/index.asp?sPage=1&langID=2&cID=14 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.104.67.221 (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Honestly, I don't see the difference between Eaton's latest blowers and twin screw compressors. Eaton's blowers seem like twin screw designs to me. That point aside, efficiencies of 80% are not unusual in centrifugal supercharger applications. I was primarily referring to the superior thermal efficiency of centrifugal compressors vs. positive displacement designs. Positive displacement blowers produce full boost much earlier, so they've got their own advantages, but thermal efficiency isn't one of them. TomTheHand 01:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Stackable Shipinfo box

Sorry, I've been away a while. I think the template in my userspace has the stackable part working. What is needed is the "if" logic not to display any parameter that doesn't have a value. Pretty simple template stuff, as you have all the examples of the ones that hide already. Also any add any new values that may have appeared over the last few months. Oh, and I recall I wasn't happy with the name of the stacking control paramter. Maybe it should be called "stack" or "position".

I'm don't know if I'll be working much on wikipedia any time soon. Just stopped by to upload an image for one of my pet ships. --J Clear 20:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)