Société aérophile de France
Have you heard of the "Société aérophile de France"? It's mentioned in this article and in a handful of web search hits, such as this one which says it was founded in 1889. Is it possible that this club was known by another more popular name? Ping User:AvionHerbert.
Also: Threaded discussion interface seems a little buggy. Part of this may be due to the required captcha (maybe not necessary if user access is strictly limited), which doesn't work on the same browser that the forum does (sort of ) work on. LTA (talk) 16:06, January 2, 2017 (EST)
- I didn't know about it. It looks significant and deserves a page here if it might be different from the others. It could conceivably be the same as the Union Aerophile Francaise aka Union Aerophile de France which seemed to be the nominal publisher of L'Aerophile for some years. I ran across that fact years ago and put it in the en.wp article on L'Aerophile. But I didn't find any other role of Union Aerophile, or many mentions of it. I see there is some kind of new Societe aerophile since maybe 1993.
- Feel free to create a new page about Société aérophile, or if you'd rather I did, I will. FYI I'm about to ask Yaron to make some changes to the way Organizations display here. But if you just copy an existing one or edit the form it should work fine.
- And I also see that threaded discussion doesn't always work right. I was interested to see that it mostly worked right when you wrote me before. CAPTCHA? I didn't remember. Maybe I can turn that off someday. -- Econterms (talk) 03:41, January 3, 2017 (EST)
Data import glitch
Just to clarify the nature of the glitch, it seems that each entry 'tech fields' (separated by semicolons) got spread across the next few fields. E.g., Patent US-1908-900041 has "airplane" as the tech field, "frame" as the filing date, "stability", as the full specification filed date, "rudder" as the application number, etc. Did we talk about this already? Is the plan to fix them all manually?
There seem to be some other glitches down near the bottom of the table also, with weird numbers showing up as the number of diagram/text pages. E.g., Patent US-1864-45665 says there are 45472288 diagram pages (which there aren't). I'm not sure where this number comes from; it's not in the copy of the spreadsheet I'm looking at (which may not be the most up-to-date). Aloha LTA (talk) 02:09, February 24, 2017 (EST)
P.S. I see that the tech fields problem is the source of the lower problems also—the fields are simply pushed down by the number of displaced tech fields—but this effect is somewhat concealed in the wikitext because empty fields aren't included. LTA (talk) 02:33, February 24, 2017 (EST)
- It's a mess and I don't know the right answer, but what I want to do is fix them manually as we are fixing those pages for other reasons. Yes, it takes pasting in the whole Patent template. I don't see how to conveniently identify which records have this problem and then how to fix it by another import. -- Econterms (talk) 13:35, March 21, 2017 (EDT)
- Who is T.F. Farman, author of "Aviation in 1909" (Blackwood's Magazine)? Presumably neither Henri nor Maurice Farman — but perhaps a relation? The article does seem to mention Farman engines a lot. LTA (talk) 23:29, March 20, 2017 (EDT)
- I didn't know about him but it seems he's the father of those two, and a journalist. I see now he's an author of relevant works. I just added a note to a page on Henri Farman so we can connect them. Yes, the Farman brothers were big news although I don't know the details. Good find! -- Econterms (talk) 13:38, March 21, 2017 (EDT)
- Item for further study: Patent GB-1911-12739 -- "Under International Convention -- seems to be referencing a law which facilitates patents from one national office to the next. Original patent in Belgium, in 1910? (Koechlin's analagous French patent Patent FR-1911-430133 is dated 1911, applied and granted.) LTA (talk) 23:44, March 30, 2017 (EDT)
- Possibly meaning the Paris Convention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Industrial_Property I guess it makes sense to elaborate patent law and practices of the time on the wiki although it's not my immediate agenda.-- Econterms (talk) 21:53, March 31, 2017 (EDT)
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Category:Vessels?||2||20:23, December 17, 2016|
What do you think about creating pages (and perhaps a top-level category) for actually existing vessels? La France, Voisin Canard, Antoinette IV etc? Thinking about this because I just saw the following interesting anecdote (Santos-Dumont, 1904, referring to the flight of Santos-Dumont No. 1 in 1898):
So long as I continued to ascend the hydrogen increased in volume as a consequence of the atmospheric depression. So by its tension the balloon was kept taut, and everything went well. It was not the same when I began descending. The air pump, which was intended to compensate the contraction of the hydrogen, was of insufficient capacity. The balloon, a long cylinder, all at once began to fold in the middle like a pocket knife, the tension of the cords became unequal, and the balloon envelope was on the point of being torn by them. At that moment I thought that all was over, the more so as the descent, which had begun, could no longer be checked by any of the usual means on board, where nothing worked.
The descent became a fall. Luckily, I was falling in the neighbourhood of the grassy turf of Bagatelle, where some big boys were flying kites. A sudden idea struck me. I cried to them to grasp the end of my guide rope, which had already touched the ground, and to run as fast as they could with it against the wind.
This deals with an important problem in ballooning so it seems worthwhile to record. But the Alberto Santos-Dumont article may not be the best place for it. Running against the wind worked and Alberto was fine, if you were wondering. Cheers, LTA (talk) 14:36, December 17, 2016 (EST)
I like it a lot -- pages and category. It's good to grow that direction. When that seems right, go for it. The category might be "vessels"? or "aircraft"? Or "specific aircraft" since others are repeated models? Not all experiments were aircraft so there is an overlapping idea of "specific experiment" or something. Resources are finite and I need to focus on organizations, patents, and publications, generally. Tangently -- Hey, this new form of messaging seems to work. Good to know. -- Econterms (talk) 14:49, December 17, 2016 (EST)
Let's go with Category:Aircraft: often it seems like there is not even a sharp distinction (in the literature) between individual machines and design-types. And I suppose "vessel" might not include kites and gliders. The comment system seems logical but for some reason works only incompletely in my main browser -- but it's okay because it works in this other one.