Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:59, 15 February 2011

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Energy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics: Fluid Dynamics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

Archives

/Archive 1 – February 14 2008 /Archive 2 – March 28 2008 /Archive 3 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tidal power article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Rename

I think this page should be renamed to "Tide power". Similar to that of "Wind power", "Solar power", etc. Just a suggestion. Regards. Rehman 07:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again I disagree - it can be either - Wind ENERGY, Solar ENERGY, Tidal ENERGY. instead of imposing your view on the site which others have laboured so long to produce and that you seem to show so little regard for, why not leave it alone ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.86.171.114 (talk) 08:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This anonymous user has repeatedly made comments like this. Considering Rehman's comments are over 11 months old and the page has already been named, they seem out-of-touch (as do some of the others). Also, it appears that another anonymous address may be a sock-puppet for the same user.--E8 (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Play the ball NOT the man. The issue is not about sock puppets but one of an industry acceptable standard. I am a retired engineer with decades of experience - who the hell are you and Rehman? I have been editing this site for many years now - at one stage the majority of edits here were from me - I along with the silent majority am alarmed at the amount of rubbish content placed on this site by people who have no idea about what they writing. How about you get rid of the theoretical nonesense and get with the real up to date data!? There is also the issue of Rehman vandalising the site and people like you validating his actions so much so that where once there was a coherent one stop shop, now the information is fragmented all over at the whim of some one who thinks their form of anarchy rules - how about a little consideration for researchers and those who come to this site looking for information. Restore the site to it's original condition - then learn how to play the ball not the man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.169.177.107 (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no industry acceptable standard on the name. A Google Books search gives about 50 thousand hits for "tidal power" and about 30 thousand hits for "tidal energy". Similarly, Google Scholar gives about 8 thousands hits for "tidal power" and 11½ thousand hits for "tidal energy". So both names have an equivalent usage.

The amount of edits you have made or the "silent majority" are not relevant in this discussion. Inclusion of material into the article is reached through obtaining consensus on the basis of arguments, notability and reliable sources.

Please be civil, and refrain from using terms as "vandalising" and otherwise with respect to other editors. -- Crowsnest (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You use terms like "sock puppet", "relevant" and "civil" when you go about your business of anarchy and hypocrisy - you place your template over what you deem to be right and insist everyone adheres to it or else. That's not the way wiki works.... This site was vandalised by Rain-man and you are just running interference for him. Who made you god over the site !? Your lack of understanding regarding the issues is only belittled by your arrogance in dictating what people should think - OR ELSE. (NoI did not miss your hollow threat) There are names that come to mind that describe people who are closed minded to anything but their point of view and bully others who they can't bend to theirs ... I say it again and call for someone to step in and revert the site back to what is was before you and your friend Rain-man changed it. The site was concise and reflected the industry according to what those in the industry - not your so called Google search - use by convention. This site has been vandalised by people who have never worked in the industry nor have any relevant knowledge of the industry and are portraying the site according to a nonsense set of standards that only make sense to them selves. Someone should do something about it - the absolute nonesense about "dynamic tidal power" is a blight on the site and shows clearly what happens when people who do not know what theya re talking about are let free to run amok. If you want to know what iss not relevant then dynamic tidal power is at the bottom of the garden with these fairies.

Does anyone care anymore or has the standard here slipped to where science and industry mean nothing?

New Ideas Tidal power

I have had an idea for many years to exploit tidal power and have done nothing about it...life has got in the way...my idea does not exploit the passage or velocity of the tide and there are no turbines. I have had a look at the current ideas available and no one is using my concept. I am not an engineer, my background is in building and consturction and so have limitied knowledge as to how to proceed with my idea. Interested please feel free to contact me by email or post on here...thanks Les 06/03/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.194.40.180 (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hi. I plan of cutting down a big chunks of this article and remove duplicates. I also plan on moving the three main types of tidal power generation to its corrosponding main articles: tidal barrage, tidal stream generator, and dynamic tidal power, leaving behind just a summary with a "main article" link in its sections. I intend to do this by a week or two if no one objects. Kind regards. Rehman 13:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well done, Rehman, I think this is an improvement. Many thanks. UNguyinChina —Preceding undated comment added 06:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

You're welcome ;) Rehman 06:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems you're an experienced editor. Do you have any tips on how to further improve the 'dynamic tidal power' page? I'd like to make the page more complete and I've got quite a lot of materials here, such as academic research, graphics, recent developments, and links to recent publications. What do you think it could use? UNguyinChina —Preceding undated comment added 07:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

Sorry for the late reply. My main concern was that the article needs further diagrams to explain, and a little re-wording here and there. But I see you have already taken care of those; nice work ;). Any further improvements would eventually flow in when needed, as with the rest of the Misplaced Pages articles. Rehman 09:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Rehman. Please let me know if you have any further ideas for the page. UNguyinChina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.113.152.177 (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Just a side not, after you finished typing a reply (and before you hit "save page"), type four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message to sign it, so that others may know who posted the comment, and when. Kind regards. Rehman 10:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Rehman: Many thanks for the pointers. This is very helpful. (114.248.126.243 (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC))

Rehman - you are a great editor but have little understanding of the importance of some of the material you have removed. Industry technology could be astrongly argued by many to be highly relevent to the this page as well as independent third party expert comments - all gone - ALL GONE. You have no idea how impoertant this material was to both the researchers and the industry as a whole. Who's going to fix this ????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.169.177.131 (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think you misunderstood; I did not remove anything, just merely moved it to sub-articles: tidal barrage, tidal stream generator, and dynamic tidal power. This page is too large to hold all of them. Rehman 02:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I mis-understood but what happened to the rest of the subject matter like venturis (arguably the jet engine of turbien design) and the formulas for power and the peer reviews that students come here to cite for their research ??? As a retired engineer with a background in hydrology I have never heard or come across "dynamic tidal power" - there are no proof of concept reports no commercial prototypes and no peer reviews yet they are cited here as fact - who is responsible for this fanciful fairly tale ! - who on this earth authorised this rot ??? Return the site to it's former state and do not fiddle with subject matter unless it is to do with spelling or grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.169.177.131 (talk) 11:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I did not remove any content directly from this page; just merely separated across four pages (including this). If you have any concerns regarding content, please use the relevant article's talkpage, so that the related editors could see into (i.e. for dynamic tidal power, please use its talkpage). Content on those pages may be altered/removed depending on the situation there; nothing to do with my splitting of the page. Rehman 00:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You stated above that you removed large chunks of material - this is nothing short of vandalism - who gave you the right to do throw away years of hard work and editing by dedicated researchers and peers who toiled to place here information that has been of in valuable service to all - "I did not remove any contant from this page" !? Sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.86.171.114 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"Removing (i.e. deleting for good)", and "moving (to another page)", are two different things... Read again, what I mean by cutting down this article was that I plan on cutting down the length of this page, by splitting content to separate pages. Rehman 07:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing has been "thrown away", material has just been moved (reshuffled) to articles pointed to in this article. -- Crowsnest (talk) 08:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"if no one objects" - I object in the strongest possible way at how this editor has changed this site to suit his personal whim. Many editors laboured many years over this site as a "one stop shop" for information nat a site where information has been scattered to the wind on one persons brain explosion. The site has been butchered and it remains to be seen whether it will ever be returned to it origional state. I strogly believe people with little or no understanding of the subject matter - the Dynamic Tidal Power editing a point in question - be allowed to make wholesale editorial changes. I will repeat it again - formulas are missing, peer reviews are missing, vital information on advances in technology have all been moved making research and assessment all that much harder. Is this what Misplaced Pages has come! A site where anarchy has become the standard ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.86.171.114 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Maine

Ed Muskey, senator from Maine, mentioned many years ago that tidal power from Maine had the potential to power most of the US for little cost ( of course to make not to use). The technology has been available for a long long time but since it is not needed - oil is still available and will be for decades/centuries/?? - no action is planned. Wind power and sun power are being pursued mostly because they cost alot and have little or no potential.159.105.81.31 (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

This site has been totally vandalised - years of editing has been removed - peer reviews, formulas and vital information about advcances in technology like shrouds and venturis has all been removed. What are students and researchers interested in this page going to do now ? Who is going to fix this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.86.171.114 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no vandalism. All that's happened is that the information has been spread across several pages, rather than all condensed into one page. That's been done because the page got too long. All the information that was here previously on tidal barrages, is now on the Tidal barrage page. And all the information that was here previously on tidal stream generators, is now on the Tidal stream generator page. Both these pages are linked to, from this Tidal Power page. Ernestfax 08:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class energy articles
• High-importance energy articles
• B-Class physics articles
• Mid-importance physics articles
• B-Class physics articles of Mid-importance
• B-Class fluid dynamics articles
• Fluid dynamics articles