Article - Good Enough for Wikipedia?

[larry cottrill]

I'd like to put up a better article on valveless pulsejets on Wikipedia than what you presently get (try searching on "Valveless Pulse Jet"). Please have a look at the following, and criticize it as you see fit. If there are no serious arguments with it, I'll post it. Thanks in advance!


Valveless Pulse Jet

Note: In the following article, I will use the more popular single-word term “pulsejetâ€

[madmike]

a few mentions of "explosions" for the explaination, from my pyrotechnic dabblings, Shouldn't these be called deflagrations or something to that effect. I'm no scientist but doesn't the term explosion refer to something happening at a faster burn rate than those found on pulsejets (pulsejet ONE word like you;) ) I recently confused the police with this explaination regarding running my pulsejet as it sounded like I knew more than they did, it seemed to work, as I confused them enough to shrug it off and leave. I know someone here on this helpful site can put ME on the right track, But when others start reading about our "EXPLOSIVE" hobby descriptions , they tend to think we're more nuts that we really are (even though some of us ARE nuts;)
Good little artical though! It gets my vote

[Eric]

Im going to have to go back and read that again, by the time I got to the bottom I forgot what I was going to mention at the top.

Nice way to slip in the focused wave engine as a dominant engine style.

Eric

[Jonny69]

Right at the beginning should there be a first paragraph just saying "a pulsejet is a type of jet engine with no moving parts relying on resonance in an empty tube" or something along those lines? Then go on to say a valveless pulsejet is a variation with no reed valves?

Just an idea for the layman who may not know what a pulsejet is. Most of my peers draw a blank when I tell them what it is that's all.

Jon

[larry cottrill]

It's certainly a heck of a lot better than what's there.

Three notes, though:
1) The note violates MoS and would get changed.
2) The signature violates MoS and would be removed.
3) Do you fully understand the ramifications of the GFDL license and the concept of Wikipedia?

OK, OK and no. I just decided to look it up and didn't care much for what was there. It's about the second time I've ever accessed it. I will be glad to conform to the Manual of Style.

L Cottrill

[larry cottrill]

Im going to have to go back and read that again, by the time I got to the bottom I forgot what I was going to mention at the top.

Well, it must be pretty good if it made you forget what you were going to say ;-)

Nice way to slip in the focused wave engine as a dominant engine style.

Hmmm ... well, perhaps it is a little too much of a "new kid on the block" to rate such honorable mention. It certainly doesn't have much history behind it, and the other engines mentioned have at least been known to propel something. Good point.

L Cottrill

[Mark]

I think it should start saying a pulsejet is a kind of shaving cream can. ha
ha
Mark

[larry cottrill]

Based on comments received so far, I have revised it as follows. Please review the whole mess, as I have made many small clarifying changes in addition to the major addition at the beginning.

Thanks!


Valveless Pulse Jet -- the simplest practical jet engine

Basic characteristics

A pulse jet engine is an air-breathing reaction engine employing a continuous series of discrete combustion events rather than a constant level of combustion. This clearly distinguishes it from other reaction engine types such as rockets, turbojets and ramjets, which are all constant combustion devices. All other reaction engine types are driven by maintaining high internal pressure; pulse jets are driven by an alternation between high and low pressure. This alternation is not maintained by any mechanical contrivance, but rather by the natural acoustic resonance of the rigid tubular engine structure. The Valveless Pulse Jet is, mechanically speaking, the simplest form of pulse jet, and is, in fact, the simplest known air-breathing propulsion device that can operate “staticallyâ€

[Bruno Ogorelec]

Damn! Just as I read it carefully and think it out and prepare a response, you write a new version. You are too fast for me. OK, at this point i just want to say that Wikipedia seems like a thankless format for texts of this kind. As Eric says, by the time you reach the end, you have lost the beginning. More when I read the new version.

[leo]

Larry I think it has to be a lot shorter, as Eric and Bruno losing the beginning as pulsejet specialists, how do you think a newbe would be able to get it.

[larry cottrill]

Larry I think it has to be a lot shorter, as Eric and Bruno losing the beginning as pulsejet specialists, how do you think a newbe would be able to get it.

Well, I can understand this concern. However, my feeling is that for every reader who finds it daunting there will be another who wants enough detail to really get a picture of how it works. My experience is that most people that are really interested in something don't give up on their first scan through just because it seems like a lot to take in. After all, it's not like you need to absorb it all in one sitting.

But then, I'm from another era. Not exactly a part of the Sound Bite Generation who want it all quick and easy.

"Do you want fries with that? ... "

L Cottrill

[Stuart]

I'm just starting to get into Wikipedia. The ramjet section leaves a lot to be desired and darn if that doesn't look like a pic of Maggie Mugs as the example. They botched the explanation that a subsonic diffuser and exhaust nozzle are the opposite of the supersonic design. They also left out the flameholder.

[larry cottrill]

I think it is good, and I think you should post it. And you should sign up for an account first (it's very quick and completely free) using your real name in the username (mine is my last name) because it gives you an advantage if the text is ever reused elsewhere.

I did sign up, and printed out the manual of style. The version I published here (last one) was re-edited to look right for the forum post here. I got the original to look fine on the Wikipedia 'Preview' screen - bold, italics, headers and all - but haven't posted it yet.

Darn, of course you're right about how I should have used my name as the user name - I guess I can just register again and do it that way.

But posting it on Wikipedia is the important part.

Ben, I think you're right. I'm just holding off now because of Bruno's comment that he would have more to say about it. Also, I found that while the current article is under 'Valveless Pulse Jet', they don't have one under 'Valveless Pulsejet', so I'll do it that way and eliminate the awkward terminology reference. It looks like the Wikipedia search function will sort that out whichever way you enter the search term, anyway. I also made a few of the terms links to topics they already have, such as pulsejet, resonance, hydrocarbons, and so on (at their first occurrence, of course).

Thus ends the short lesson on MediaWiki markup. Let me know if you have any other questions, I wrote parts of the user manual for the software.

Just one - I'd like my list to be a bulleted list rather than numbered, and I haven't discovered yet how that's done. Thanks for your help and encouragement.

L Cottrill

[Anders Troberg]

Just one - I'd like my list to be a bulleted list rather than numbered, and I haven't discovered yet how that's done.

Easy, just preface each item with a *, or more if you want several levels (that works for # also). Example:

Types of jet engines:
* Pulsejet
** Valved pulsjets
** Valveless pulsejets
* Ramjets
* Turbojets

On screen, the multiple * will be only one bullet, but deeper indented.

The same list, but with # would come out as:

Types of jet engines:
1 Pulsejet
1.1 Valved pulsjets
1.2 Valveless pulsejets
2 Ramjets
3 Turbojets

Good Enough for Wikipedia?

That's not the question you should be asking yourself. The question is (No, not "Do you feel lucky, punk?") if it is better than what's there now. I think it is, which means that you (in my opinion) should post it. Sure, it can be refined and polished until hell freezes over, but every step in the right direction is a step in the right direction.

Post it, then refine it as you find things you want to fix.

[larry cottrill]

Anders -

Thanks very much!

Yes, as marketing guru Mike Litman likes to say, "You don't have to get it right, you just have to get it going!" (He doesn't mean that you can have it slipshod, of course - just that something doesn't have to be fully perfected before you launch it.) Easy to forget, sometimes.

L Cottrill