Project:Hot air flow
We could use this page as our general discussion platform; or we could be more formal and create a new page that's not connected with an article. We could also use Talk for the main page... Cheers LTA (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2021 (PST)
- 1 Internal server error
- 2 Transfer of the discussion
- 3 Aero as power source
- 4 Templates linking GB patents to pages in B&A (1893) and Neilson (1910)
- 5 LU patent was in family of HU patent?
- 6 Mexican patents
- 7 One standard patent report now includes Filing date
- 8 Categories for archives and/or repositories
- 9 Concepts of patent class and subclass
- 10 Airship - Dirigible - Steerable Airship
Internal server error
For multiple days running I get the "500 Internal Server Error" specifically trying to edit Daimler Motoren-Gesellschaft and Belgium; not other pages; no problems with new page creation, moving, etc. Is it something about the content of these pages? Can anyone else edit those pages specifically? LTA (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2021 (PST) Text of the message follows:
Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator at email@example.com to inform them of the time this error occurred, and the actions you performed just before this error.
More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
Right now I'm working on some Hermann Hassenbach, but I've encountered the internal error in several contexts.
- This problem is persisting on the Daimler page. LTA (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2021 (PST)
- I just did a successful edit on Daimler Motoren-Gesellschaft User:AvionHerbert 18:18, 14 February 2012 (PST) An extremely minor edit test just failed on Belgium. Likewise I was unsuccessful adding a large, though non-link-containing, bit of text to my userpage
- This is still unresolved. I've tried some edits on Industrial property law, with and without some highly desirable source links.
- Sometimes it takes a long time for a page to show up in reports, or its old name/format shows up for a while before the system catches up. I don't know how to speed that up. These are "background jobs" which sometimes run quickly and sometimes not.
- And the Internal Server Error is bad. I get stuck there. You can sometimes store PART of the edit but not all. It comes and goes, meaning the same thing might store the next day. I don't know how to fix it yet. -- Meyer (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2021 (PST)
- I'm running into the Internal Server Error at Hungarian patent classifications ;
"|V |Vasutak, erőgépek |Railways, machinery ("Osztály V/h" is aero)"
"The "h", in our HU V/h, designates the aero subcategory. This is in the nature of the general idea that this system was also "based on the German". The "Főosztály" (category) is analogous to the German "Klasse". Each "Főosztály" is then subdivided into "Osztály" (class) designations analogous to the German "Gruppe". In the case of Hungary, we only have contemporary, to us, hearsay, regarding the system's being "based on the German", though we have empirical experience at finding data and viewing "Osztály V/h" on aero patents."
would be desired additions.
- I don't know what to do about the Internal Server Errors. I'll keep my eyes peeled. If one can keep the edit window open for a day or two, it sometimes goes away. Or if one reduces the number of changes, sometimes they can be saved, leaving fewer to do later. -- Econterms (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2021 (PST)
- I'm finding the issue as applied to Belgium, which is quite lengthy, and loaded with various types of links, internal and external. I was trying to apply the spectacular new Template:Patents by country. For my purposes I took the template, and started to "create" a page "X", used preview to see the data, and didn't save.
- Argh. Feel free to save that other temporary page under any name, and link to it or just return to it at will. It is okay to create and reorganize. I will take on board and try to contact system operators to find out why this is happening.
Transfer of the discussion
Should these boys have separate pages for some limited purposes? I took note of their being described of self-described as Industrialists, as sourced via Hungarian patents, then also added their birth and death dates, among other things, while I was at it. So the Wright Brothers show up as one person on the Industrialist occupation page, with 1969-12-31 showing up on that "person's" birth and death date. There are few other interest in non-compact report and so forth reasons why having them register as separate persons, for some purposes, might be handy. Each page could be strategically minimal and head with a friendly pointer to the shared page, en lieu of a simple redirect.
Aero as power source
Leaving a rough note here for further development and comment. Having found an early volume of the GB Abridgments which catalogues aero patents before the 1860s, I'm seeing descriptions of the earliest British patents classified under "aeronautics". A large fraction of them deal with the application of power derived from the air to other types of transportation—namely, carriages, boats, tracks. E.g. Patent GB-1852-155, Patent GB-1849-12452], Patent GB-1843-9642, Patent GB-1853-1088; & see keyword track.
It would seem appropriate to devise a keyword for this category of invention.
Additionally, it seems significant for a history of technology and innovation, that more inventors proportionately saw aero as a means to an already known end, before later seeing it as an end in itself. Cheers, LTA (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2021 (PST)
- Power derived from the air -- by windmills? There seem to have been American patents for "wind wheels" (analogous "water wheels") as well as windmills. There may be a distinction between wind wheel and wind mill but I haven't noticed it. -- Econterms (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2021 (PST)
- Ah. Sounds interesting. I see a discussion in Neilson's book that he doesn't want to include all the Aeronautics patents - e.g., not balloons, and maybe these also. Maybe count them as .5-relevant for now?
- Tentatively calling these aero-as-power. LTA (talk) 09:20, 8 June 2021 (PDT)
Newly improved templates will link right to our descriptions of older British aero patents in two books which are perfectly scanned at Internet Archive. This wiki code will unpack like the references below:
LU patent was in family of HU patent?
User:AvionHerbert: I edited to assert that these two patents were in the same family based on your observation about their filing dates and titles. I don't *know* that they are, but it seemed more misleading in the data to assume they were NOT in the same family. Please edit further as seems best.
Patent family descending from Patent HU-1911-59226
- Patent HU-1911-59226 (English title: Reversing device for the propulsion of vehicles with self-propelled roller shutters, National tech categories: HU V/h)
- Patent LU-1911-8830 (English title: Reverse gear for a drive device for airships, watercraft and the like, Supplementary to patent: Patent HU-1911-59226)
User:Econterms: I likewise assume they are related, and I love the funneling of data, later displayed. Varying classification system protocols and many other phenomena of international relations and analogues have jumped out by way of handling "supplementary to" and "family" most expansively, but I thought this is the basic "supplementary to" versus "cites these patents" point of differentiation. -User:AvionHerbert
Great find. It seems the reason they don't display at first (and come into lists doubled) is the apostrophe before the asterix, right after the template, introducing the inventor location and sources. Was this deliberate for some reason? If not, deleting the apostrophe is a pretty easy fix. Meanwhile, find/replace seems unwilling to target the string "M�xico". Also, the date granted on many or all of these came in as 1905. LTA (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2021 (PDT)
- Yup. I tried to be careful but messed up a lot. And it made errors with an character with diacritics. I will try to clear out the extra apostrophes. -- Econterms (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2021 (PDT)
- I'm bummed that we can't search-and-replace the strange character that came in. It can be done by hand, one by one. The strange character comes in because of some kind of dreamhost mistake and/or the Page Transfer extension. I know how to investigate when I work up the steam to do it. -- pbm
One standard patent report now includes Filing date
- I added Filing date to the kind of patent report that shows up on Thomas Sloper because he has a patent thicket and it helps to figure out parent-child relations. Maybe this would help on all patent reports? Now I'm thinking this is long overdue. But we could also create templates with short/simple patent reports. Comments welcome. -- pbm
- I think that would quite often be handy, and most particularly as applied to inventor pages. -- jrh
Categories for archives and/or repositories
- I'm thinking we can mark pages here about physical archives in Category: Archives, and online or electronic ones in Category: Repositories. Good? I'm inclined to use plural but I'm not sure what's best. But that helps us track places and sources. -- Econterms (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2021 (PDT)
- Would Category: Online repositories make the distinction relative to physical archives more explicit? Plural certainly.-JRH
- Agreed. I've created them. Let's see if it does some good. There are MANY places, both online and physical, that have primary materials of interest. I guess databases with secondary information could be marked too, as "category: databases" or something. -- pbm
- Regarding Category: Online repositories, in a few cases I'd like to create fairly brief pages, appropriately categorized, featuring external links along with succinct references to offices, modern or historical, with which they are associated, along with references to archival facilities which hold the actual physical documents.
- Regarding Category: Archives, a key type of secondary information in the context of catalogues or "journals" as they call them at STIC, could be marked in various ways, with AGR 2 - Cuvelier for instance being great for primary documents as well as catalogues, but all Belgian, whereas STIC is greatly international in terms of catalogues, but holds no(?) patent originals. Perhaps highlighting as an emphasis on STIC, for instance, would be handy.
- Please proceed creatively!
Concepts of patent class and subclass
JRH, I boldly made edits to HU V/h that may not seem suitable. The internationally comparable concepts to Főosztály and Osztály appear to be patent class and patent subclass. Across countries, patents were assigned to subclasses -- sometimes one subclass, or sometimes a list of them. Patent classes are descriptive, and are made up of collections of subclasses, and generally do NOT have patent assigned to them. E.g. "machinery" or "aeronautics" or "Sport" might be classes. I would like to say that these words match Főosztály and Osztály. Is that reasonable? -- Meyer (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2021 (PDT)
PBM, I don't mind. "Főosztály V"(even sometimes translating specifically as "general department") is inclusive of "Osztály V/h". Then the Hungarian system gets into further subclassifications, though not necessarily within our aero material.
Somewhere I'd emphasize variable degrees of a subclassification process. So classes would include such elements as the Dutch "Klasse", for instance, along with various analogous forms, with subclasses including the Dutch "Groepe", for instance, along with analogous forms. Etymology might be out the window in some cases, in terms of which word designates the broader grouping, with mere convention playing a role, but yes, we're getting to the thinking of the time. Patent classification systems could use a section on this, with ongoing speculations, as well as more outlined structuring of material being handled in analogous manners across the international context, with nationally specific term pages ordered in said section.
Airship - Dirigible - Steerable Airship
Speaking of etymology, relative to mere convention, and conventions swinging between languages, we know that English "dirigible" comes form French "dirigeable" (the adjective meaning "steerable" from "diriger" - "to direct"). A Hungarian translation might get us "steerable airship"(dirigible), but is there such a thing as a non-steerable airship? I'm thinking in terms of tracking proportionate data. Other terms, when we have them, lead to more legitimate precision. A blimp is specifically a non-rigid airship. Then again, these are also "steerable". I'm sort of tied up today, but do we need some disambiguation and possibly some eloquent and well-placed confession of ambiguity on these matters?
- I think the term was meant to distinguish from older style balloons which (1) weren't shaped for efficient steering, and/or (2) didn't have any force of motive power to move them horizontally, and/or (3) didn't have fins or tail for control. At one time I thought "rigid" was part of the definition, but it isn't. I don't know where the sharp line is; I think of it as being the cigar shape versus the balloon shape, but maybe a dirigeable always has propulsion too. In modern use "airship" would always be steerable but I don't know about that then.
- Regarding: do we need some disambiguation and possibly some eloquent and well-placed confession of ambiguity on these matters? YES that sounds constructive, if we don't already have it. There are books and other references to check on these terminologies. I just checked two books on the history of ballooning and didn't see a clear definition. en.wp treats dirigible as synonymous with airship, and says: "An airship or dirigible balloon is a type of aerostat or lighter-than-air aircraft that can navigate through the air under its own power." I like that, but we also want to establish what it meant back then. -- PBM 18 Sept 2021
- I think some of the issues come up in terms of mere usage, and interlinguistic borrowing, antique and modern. "Blimp" even pops up from time to time in Hungarian-English translation, and that should definitely be non-rigid, though I'm not sure of each case. I like the above definition, and the general equation of airship=dirigible, rigid-non-rigid being great data when we have it. I'll put something on Techtypes about this sort of issue. -JRH
- Excellent! -- PBM
- There seem to be few uses of airship or aéronef before the era of dirigibility. Dirigible is really a less descriptive name and probably a shortening of "dirigible airship" (arrived at in English and French). Although as you suggest "dirigible airship" is redundant, it may have been been useful for communication purposes when the technology was new and the vocabulary uncertain. LTA (talk) 09:50, 19 September 2021 (PDT)