Jump to content

Talk:George Cayley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stiff?

[edit]

sounds too much like a high school report. a bit gushy at times. the tone is inappropriate for an encyclopedia.141.213.39.73 17:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

first, Cayley...

is now widely acknowledged as the inventor of the science of aerodynamics

then,

his aeronautical work largely sank into obscurity.

aren't these a bit incongruous? he is "widely" regarded as the first aerodynamicist, but nobody today knows why (?). no engineer or scientist thinks like that. 141.213.39.73 17:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

according to the external link:

However, Sir George Cayley's endeavors (including in areas other than aeronautics) have hardly been forgotten, for he is seen as, perhaps, the single most important aerial researcher and theoretician of his time.

141.211.174.217 00:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article says he invented all these things and that his work "fell into obscurity". This is correct. He did good scientific work, and published it, but it was fifty years before anybody followed it up. That is hardly his fault. What have you got against the bloke? User:GrahamN 24 Oct 2004

I have nothing against Cayley, stop assuming that I do. Where did I say otherwise? I said that the article sounded contradictory. I didn't blame Cayley for anything. The article was confusing because it would at one point aknowledge the fame of his achievements, then say that that fame did not exist. I now understand that it was intended to mean he was not recognized widely at first, but today is. That was and is not clear in the article.
Also, please tell me what was wrong with my sentence structure. What do you have against conciseness? And justify the frivolous anecdotes and immature tone which you seem to prefer in encyclopædic writing.
For what I consider to be a good, well-written academic overview of Cayley's achievements, please read any one of J. Anderson's books on the relevant subjects. ✈ James C. 19:09, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
P.S. note that in my quoting of an external link, I was attempting to prove Cayley's recognition and importance today. And I have something against the "bloke"?

Arthur Cayley

[edit]

Cousin or Nephew? It says both. Jooler 10:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

various

[edit]

Accoring to a magazine article I read but cannot cite since I didn't note the ref., his manned glider was not steerable and it flew 270 meters. This is about double the distance the german wik gives in its cynical article (allegd flight).

Fair use rationale for Image:Cayley Glider Replica Flown By Derek Piggott 2.jpg

[edit]

Image:Cayley Glider Replica Flown By Derek Piggott 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power to weight ratio

[edit]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cayley did calculations of the power-to-weight ratio of an engine needed for powered flight. He concluded that no engine then existing had the required ratio so he concentrated on gliders. True? Jagdfeld (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be - the only engines available at the time were steam engines, and they have a poor power-to-weigh ratio.
He made several models that were powered by rubber bands in the same manner as 'rubber-powered' models available today. One was based on an 'A-frame' with twin pusher propellers at the rear, IIRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.41 (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First glide

[edit]

Removed sentence about first heavier than air flight because claims exist for earlier such flights/glides. The subject of "first" is quite controversial. See also these articles (which are referenced at end of Cayley article): List of early flying machines; First flying machine. DonFB (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

where they got the idea of that airfoil shape

[edit]

Nice article.

I was thinking - how about grounding the article in terms of where they got the idea of that airfoil shape. I discovered that sailors have been talking about lift and that airfoil shape since Egypt ruled, it's really a basic principle of sailing. I think I'm going to copy this to the wiki reference on wing as well.

When I started looking into this I thought these guys like George Cayley were pretty esoteric thinkers to just sit there with Bernoulli's Equation in the 1700's and come up with the airfoil. If you look at it, he was just describing a long-known phenomenon in the lab. In fact I'm a little shocked at how long it took to develop the airplane wing, historically speaking. We've known this for a real long time. This may be obvious you folks on the coast, but it wasn't obvious to this land lubber.

Just a sentence in the intro like...


Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Does the article really need the duplicate references and very lengthy quotes they contain?TheLongTone (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current format of the citations also make the text very hard to edit. I suggest that the quotations and the citations are separated and the citations are broken into short and long references. -- PBS (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think these long citations are a bad idea. If the material is significant to the topic, it should go in the main text. if it is not then a simple citation of the sources is enough. There is no rule that the content of the source should be rubbed in our faces. If there is a content dispute then it needs to be resolved here, not in the citation notes. Readers of the article should not be exposed to our dirty laundry. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reinventing the wheel

[edit]

It is said often enough that Cayley "reinvented the wheel". The phrase is a well-known cliché and therefore introduces light-hearted overtones which are not part of Cayley's story. Citable sources are naturally aware of the overtones when they deliberately use the phrase to describe Cayley's tension-spoked wheel. Should we repeat it because it is well-known and citable, or should we paraphrase it to avoid those irrelevant overtones? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

use the phrase, but place a footnote to explain it (after the next punctuation mark), for those ... who do not understand such humour. -- PBS (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Omission in my edit summary of "not," as in "does not have to be entirely stodgy" was inadvertent. In any case, the choice of phrasing is not essential to understanding the topic at hand. I believe, however, that no one reading the mildly idiomatic expression will be at all confused about the meaning of the sentence. The phrase can indeed mean other things, figuratively, but here it is both literal and slightly figurative. Native English speakers will, I believe, appreciate the flavor of the phrase and non-native speakers can simply take it literally if they haven't seen it before. No one will misunderstand what's being said. DonFB (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The accidental omission of "not" was evident, no problem there. Your own personal belief, however, that "no one reading the mildly idiomatic expression will be at all confused" is not a criterion for how things should be worded in wikipedia. For one thing, I was confused by the idiom because I'm familiar with the idiom. Because it relied only on the idiom, the wording was not clear that he invented a new way of constructing a wheel. The idiom alone is insufficiently clear.
If you like the phrase, and if the phrase is indeed frequently used about Caley's "new method of constructing a wheel" then it can certainly be used. If it is used, it should meet some basic requirements:
1) The fact that it's frequently used should be cited in secondary sources. Or, at a minimum, a secondary source should use the phrase. I.e., one editor thinking it's cute isn't good enough. And, "the phrase is cute" or "the alternative is dry and not cute enough" is not a valid reason for inclusion of cutsey, unencyclopedic phraseology.
2) It should be surrounded by other text that clarifies that what he did was to invent a new lightweight method of constructing a wheel. "Reinvented the wheel" by itself is not specific and clear enough to describe what he did.
173.76.190.204 (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at some wording that might work for all of us. I'm still confused what was/is meant by "using string as wires". Did his wheels use string as the tension element instead of wire (like a bicycle spoke)? 173.76.190.204 (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just rewrote the string vs. wire bit. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on George Cayley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhos-on-Sea

[edit]

The family owned land at Rhos-on-Sea, Colwyn Bay. He is commemorated there by the Cayley Arms pub, and the Cayley Promenade. http://historypoints.org/index.php?page=the-cayley-arms https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cayley-Arms/150688288299100 78.147.41.147 (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of Sir George's grandchildren who was the first Cayley to own land at Rhos-on-Sea: George Allanson Cayley, the 8th Cayley baronet. He inherited Llanerch Park and other property in the area from someone called Whitehall Dod, who was son of the sister-in-law of George Allanson Cayley’s father, if that description of the relationship is comprehensible. The Cayleys subsequently were benefactors of Rhos-on-Sea, donating some land for municipal purposes. For a fairly simple summary of how Llanerch Park etc came into the possession of the Cayley family, see http://www.threapwoodhistory.org/Documents/1901_1909.pdf - pages 12-13. Mfcayley (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on George Cayley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In flight image

[edit]

I think the image of the reproduction of Cayley's glider in flight should remain in the article. User Hullaballoo Wolfowitz deleted it and I restored it. Hullaballoo re-deleted it. Hullaballoo's edit summary justification when re-deleting is: "The article already includes a free image of a replica glider, which shows its features much more clearly. Demonstrating that a replica could fly is unnecessary; that fact is well-documented by text alone." My opinion is that the in-flight image is unique and offers a dramatic real-world view of how the glider might actually have appeared in flight. The in-flight image provides a very different view than the museum image, which is actually cluttered and does not very clearly show the glider's features, which are shown by the in-flight view. I have no objection to retaining the museum image, but I believe Hullaballoo's rationale for deleting the in-flight image is unpersuasive. The in-flight image is, I believe, a worthwhile supplement to text which states the glider flew, a fact that Hullaballoo apparently believes should have no illustration. Hullaballoo also seems to object to the fact that the image is non-free, an issue which is irrelevant, as such images are permitted by policy. DonFB (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The central issue, as I see it, is the non-free status of the image. Use of a nonfree image must meet all of the 10 criteria listed at WP:NFCC. Criterion 8 requires that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". The topic of the article is George Cayley, and a reader's understanding of the fact that his glider(s) could fly is not in any significant way impaired by the absence of the image of a replica glider in flight, more than 150 years after his gliders actually flew. As decoration/illustration, this would be an appropriate image. But our nonfree content policy does not allow the use of nonfree images for simple decoration/illustration. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on George Cayley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wife

[edit]

The wrong wife has been given for Sir George Cayley. He married Sarah Walker, daughter of his first tutor George Walker, who has a Wikipedia entry here which correctly mentions his daughter's marriage to Sir George Cayley. See Sir George's entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Clay's edition of Dugdale's Visitation of Yorkshire, and many other places. I am making the necessary changes, with sourcing, and adding to the entry for Sir George.

Sarah Benskin Charlotte Elizabeth Cayley, who has been shown as his wife, was someone different: her birth was registered at Newington, Surrey in the 3rd quarter of 1849, with her mother's last name as Hobbs (a transcript of the birth registration can be seen on FindMyPast - subscription needed - here. She died in 1854 - her death was registered at Newington in the 4th quarter of 1854 - transcript, again on FindMyPast, here.

The death of Sarah, wife of Sir George Cayley, was registered at Scarborough, Yorkshire in the 1st quarter of 1855: death registration entry.

Mfcayley (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Cayley&oldid=1194420192"