Talk:Corliss steam engine

Plenum?

A recent adjustment to the lead introduced the term 'plenum'. This needs further explanation, especially as plenum is a disambiguation page and doesn't include an obvious onward link. Does this indicate a missing article?

EdJogg (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Plenum is a fine term, of particular relevance (in just the same context) to supercharging and hovercraft too. However there's not a good article on it as yet. Maybe I'll do one soonish. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you (for both this and 'Valving' responses). Having worked on a number of steam locomotive Featured Article Candidate articles, I have started to become more sensitive to technical jargon, and the need for ensuring meanings are clear to non-technical readers. Ocasionally this process reveals missing articles!

EdJogg (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Valving

Valving is another good term, although it's not generally used in exactly the sense it's used here. It originates with pipe-organ building, where it was the complicated adjustment of the many valves as part of setting up the final behaviour of the keyboard. In steam engines it's more the process of designing or adjust the valve timing (i.e. design of the valvegear) more than the provision of the valves themselves. For internal combustion engines, where valve and port design is even more crucial, the term used (for the ports, not the valvegear timing) is porting. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to adjust the wording, but I think 'valving' might require further explanation within the article. EdJogg (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Need wikimedia illustration

Someone needs to track down a decent photo of simple single-eccentric wrist-plate actuated Corliss valve gear. Here is a photo that is almost good for this purpose, but not in the wiki commons. [1]. We need this because it illustrates the main-line of development of Corliss valve gear, prior to the refinements with double eccentrics, and without any of the attempts Corliss's competitors made to dodge his patents. Someone who haunts steam museums needs to hunt up such a photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.45.57 (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See the Commons category. I've recently uploaded some book scans.

Dubious claim?

The claim that "This increased efficiency made steam power more economical than water power, allowing industrial development away from millponds.[2]" seems rather too strong, given that steam power had been replacing water power for most of a century before Corliss introduced his valve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.85.212.187 (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

External links -- what to do?

The external links section has grown somewhat, to the extent that an editor has identified it as a 'link farm'. Anyone have a feel for how comprehensive the current list is? How rare are preserved Corliss engines? Is there scope for a List of preserved Corliss steam engines article, as has been done for a number of preserved steam (and diesel!) locomotive classes, to keep the article sizes in sensible bounds? Unlike other 'link farms' most of these links are unlikely to be particularly commercial (assuming that most of the sites will be charitable organisations), and hence could be valid ext links if they are describing the engine in some way.

Suggestions? -- EdJogg (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Working Examples

Why are they below the references and external links? 98.233.4.253 (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

External links

I would like to propose that the "Operational engines" subsection is removed from the external links section as an Internet directory; that http://www.mgsteam.btinternet.co.uk/cvalve.htm is removed because the images appear only sporadically, which makes the page of little value and calls into question whether "the link [is functional] and likely to remain functional"; and that http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=205409 is removed because it is a site which requires registration – the content is therefore inaccessible to most visitors. Michael Anon 07:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose Corliss engines are significant, but now rare. The chance to see one is unusual. Listing the few remaining examples, especially those that are preserved and easily visited, is within our scope.

I am also seriously unimpressed with the editor's editing history thus far, in their short career at WP (to the point of almost listingit at RFC/U). It consists almost entirely of simplistic section blanking, with no evidence of selection or discussion. I see very little in terms of a positive or constructive contribution. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up external links in articles that have been tagged for external link cleanup is a perfectly positive and constructive contribution to Wikipedia. One of the most important aspects of editorial oversight involves removing unnecessary/irrelevant content (or knowing when to leave it out in the first place). This is of course a subjective task, and you're free to disagree with Michael about what he removed, but taking a cheap shot like this at someone who is clearly making a good faith effort at cleaning up Wikipedia is itself unproductive. Some cleanup of the external links in this article is necessary, considering that some of them are quite useless (www.hooky.co.uk, for example) and that several are dead/broken links. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

GF maybe, but look at the contribs history. This is just a one-trick sledgehammer, and it's harmful. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose Support Andy Dingley who is an expert in this field, both on the content of the post and the remarks about newbies who read a little policy but have no editing history themselves in this field. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Renewed proposal

I would like to provide a renewed proposal for cleaning up the external links. I have broken it down into sections so it is easier to see exactly where the disagreement is. Michael Anon 07:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of links requiring registration

Links

• A General-Purpose Technology at Work: The Corliss Steam Engine in the Late-Nineteenth-Century United States by Nathan Rosenberg and Manuel Trajtenberg. The Journal of Economic History, 64, 1 (March 2004).

Proposal

I have no doubt that the article is a reliable source that contains lots of useful information about the topic. I would therefore have no problem with it being used as a citation, for example. However, as an external link to direct users to it is of little use because few of them will be able to access it. Its inclusion therefore conflicts with the external links policy, specifically the sites requiring registration section. I would therefore propose that the link is removed from the article's external links. Michael Anon 07:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Support as proposer. Michael Anon 07:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Operational engines section

Links

• Western Museum of Mining and Industry in Colorado Springs, 1895, 500 hp (370 kW) Corliss horizontal steam engine
• Corliss Steam Engine (Pawnee, Oklahoma), listed on the NRHP
• Engines at the New England Wireless and Steam Museum in East Greenwich, Rhode Island
  • The George H. Corliss engine, 150 hp (110 kW), probably the only surviving engine designed and built by George H. Corliss that is running under steam today
  • William A. Harris engines
• Engines at the The Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan
  • 1859 Corliss Steam Engine, built by the Corliss Steam Engine Company, occasionally operated on 5 PSI compressed air.
• 1904 Nordberg 60 HP Engine installed in 2007 at the Amador Sawmill in Plymouth, California.
• Vilter Tandem-Compound Engine and Ammonia Compressor maintained by the Northern Illinois Steam Power Club (operational)
• 130 Ton Cooper Engine maintained by the Stephenson County Antique Engine Club of Freeport, Illinois (operational)
• Allis-Chalmers Engine maintained by the Hesston Steam Museum of La Porte County, Indiana
• Engines at the Midwest Old Threshers Museum in Mount Pleasant, Iowa (Alternate web site)
  • Allis Chalmers cross compound 750 HP water pump
  • Murray 600 HP 350kW generator
  • Murray 125 HP
  • Vilter refrigeration engine
  • Chuse non-releasing engine with rotary valves but fixed cutoff.
• Engines at the Rock River Thresheree Museum in Edgerton, WI
  • 1923 Allis-Chalmers 100 hp
• Engines at the Antique Gas and Steam Engine Museum in Vista, California
  • Holly Sugar Mill engine, built by Allis Chalmers in 1910, 300 hp (220 kW).
  • Brookside Winery refrigeration engine, built by Vilter circa 1900.
• Soulé Live Steam Festival 1905 Watts Campbell Co. Corliss engine. Located at the historic Soulé Steam Feed Works; maintained by the Mississippi Industrial Heritage Museum.
• 1905 Single-cylinder engine on the second floor of the Grand Rapids Public Museum in Grand Rapids, MI which is run during regular museum hours on electric power
• The Thornley-Corliss engine, installed in 1899, still powers parts of the Hook Norton Brewery in Oxfordshire
• Engines at the Bolton Steam Museum
  • McNaught 180 HP tandem compound from the Wasp mill (only the high-pressure cylinder has Corliss valve gear)
  • Scott and Hodgson 250 HP vertical cross compound from the Diamond Rope Works (only the high pressure cylinder has Corliss valve gear)
• Agnes, a 700 hp (520 kW) tandem compound engine at the Markham Grange Steam Museum
• Mill Meece Pumping Station - a pair of tandem compound engines, Eccleshall, Staffordshire
• Ellenroad Ring Mill Engine - 3,000 hp (2,200 kW) twin tandem compound engine, Rochdale, Greater Manchester
• The Bratch Pumping Station triple expansion engines, Wombourne, Staffordshire
• The Pollit & Wigzell engine at Coldharbour Mill, Uffculme, Devon
• The Distillerie Dillon, in Fort-de-France, Martinique, uses a 1922-vintage engine to run their cane crusher
• The Saraya Sugar Factory at Sardanagar, India, still had two Fives-Lille Corliss Engines as of 2004 driving cane crushers
• Frazer & Haughton 100 HP Mill Engine built by Victor Coates & Co in 1900, at the Steam Museum, Straffan, Ireland.
• Filer and Stowell tandem compound refrigeration engine at the Tokomaru Steam Museum, Tokomaru, New Zealand

Proposal

I maintain that providing a list of engines in the external links section is inappropriate, not only as a mere collection of links but because a number of the items on the list are not actually external links at all. However, there was consensus in the last discussion that the list of remaining engines is significant due their rarity. Is there a citation that supports this rarity? If so, I would be in favour of moving the information into the article itself, perhaps in a table with with some vital statistics about the engine and its present location and state. Michael Anon 07:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Strong oppose. I've no objection to cleaning up external links - I've probably done more of this than you have. However I still see that your "cleanup" has all too frequently involved simply blanking the section. Also your edits range across a very wide range of subject matter. I have little confidence that you have the knowledge of each area to judge appropriately for the value of each link. If simple rote policy, not subjective content value, was all that mattered, this sort of edit would be done by 'bots instead.

For this edit in particular though, I reverted your edit because it was not primarily about external links, but because it removed this list of surviving engines. That was why I simply blanket-reverted it, rather than checking through the individual links you'd deleted. It appears that you simply place zero value on this list, which is the action of an editor unfamiliar with the topic. I make no further comment here and would simply ask for other editors to express their opinions. If consensus isn't to keep it, I'll be most surprised.

This is a massive topic and this article has never really done it justice. Significant expansion is overdue. These engines could easily be moved to a captioned "List of surviving engines". If part of that expansion was to move the list to a separate list article, then I'm fine with that. If it's to expand the number of articles we have on individual engines, such that most of these ELs become wls, then that's great too. What I see as unacceptable though is to blank this significant list of surviving engines. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to discuss my editing history and receive feedback, but would request that it takes place on my talk page to prevent derailing the present discussion on what should be done about the external links in this specific article.

I have already recognised that this list of operational engines could have value, hence this proposal to rework the list into an informative table and to include it in the article body. As you appear to have suggested that you would support this change, I will start write a proposed version of the new table in a section on this talk page. Michael Anon 16:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose. This is the wrong way forward, see below.

Alternative proposal

User:Michael Anon should copy this article to a sandbox in his user space User:Michael Anon/sandbox. He should edit in his sandbox the changes he thinks are appropriate. This will then demonstrate to us how his ideas will turn out and we can have a proper discussion. He might like to look at the template that I created for List of textile mills in Cheshire and other mill articles- because I can see the structure of the list would be similar. He might like to hang around and add a little content to these lists too.

The approach suggested will be seen as destructive as it merely adds pressure on a couple of expert editors to abandon their current projects to implement changes that are low on their priority lists but high on Michael's while Michael makes no significant input. Editors who have maybe a thousand pages on their watchlists are perfectly aware that significant expansion is overdue, technology articles take time and you just can't get the staff!--ClemRutter (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

My proposal is already to do the work myself (I mentioned so in an earlier comment which you appear to have missed due to an edit conflict). I was just asking if there was support, in principle, for the changes. Michael Anon 07:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed article

I've drafted a proposed version of the article with a new table of operational engines and would appreciate feedback on it. Michael Anon 18:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As there's been no specific objection to the proposal I have implemented the changes. Michael Anon 07:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What is intended by the list of operational engines? If it is meant to be a list of engines fitted with Corliss valve gear that run on steam, then the list is incomplete. The museum where I work has three such engines, all of which which run on steam frequently. Should the list be expanded to include these? I can supply photos and possibly videos if this would improve the article.

Usagi-eto (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say that is exactlyu what it's purpose is. If you can add to it then please do. --Roly (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

How tall is a Story?

"... standing several stories tall ..." Is there a standard "story" in the US? If not, I don't like this use of the word as a unit of height. It's too vague. (The same with "block" as a unit of distance.) --Roly (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ten feet, as an easy round number. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Why do we need two images of the same engine?

I am an engineer and I am of the opinion that the machine requires several views.

Old Picture

New Picture

Two views of the same machine in direct comparison: technical details (the huge gear, made of cast iron parts, ect and the asynchronous drive) in the design can be understood only by two views and the new image also shows the exhibition hall and the spatial effect in the hall ...

--Metilsteiner (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree the second picture is probably better than the first but we don't need both. --Roly (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion stimulated- I have achieved my objective, so lets look at it from a wikipedia POV. this page is about Corliss steam engines- that is engines that use a Corliss rotary valve. Most preserved stationery steam engines are Corliss engines or composites of Corliss on HP / Drop pots on LP neither illustration shows the valve mechanism clearly- and as these are later models neither has a wrist plate. It looks as if it was a lovely bit of kit- but I can't see that it was technically exceptional. So that was my thinking. That said this particular beast was obviously loved- and notable in the context of the exhibition hall. I wonder if you have enough context, PD working drawings illustrations to build it up into an article in it its own right- I gladly help and advise. WP can run articles on Boy meets girl movies- it would be nice to see a series of articles on 19th century steam giants. Replace this image with another- no problem but don't think we can justify two. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

500hp baby at Queen Street Mill- This tandem compound horizontal stationary steam engine has a high-pressure cylinder (HP) of 16 inches (41 cm) and the low-pressure (LP) of 32 inches (81 cm). It uses Corliss valves- with Dobson trip gear. The engine drives a 14 feet (4.3 m) flywheel running at 68 rpm. The 500 horsepower (370 kW) engine was built and installed by William Roberts of Nelson in 1895, though it was substantially rebuilt in April 1913.

Tandem compound steam engine by Marshall & Sons, Gainsborough, Lincolnshire. It has with drop steam valves and Corliss exhaust valves. Re-erected here in the 1970s by Dorothea Restoration Engineers and sadly turned by an electric motor ever since.

Some mill engines- just showing off. Sorry, I had never used the {{multiple image}} so it seems like a good excuse

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Corliss steam engine. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907144753/http://www.steam-museum.com/Aboutus.html to http://www.steam-museum.com/Aboutus.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213063835/http://oldenginehouse.users.btopenworld.com/othermuseums.htm to http://oldenginehouse.users.btopenworld.com/othermuseums.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812203012/http://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communities/History/Landmarks/5660.pdf to http://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communities/History/Landmarks/5660.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314074314/http://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communities/History/Landmarks/5634.pdf to http://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communities/History/Landmarks/5634.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130101232952/http://ccthreshers.users2.50megs.com/ to http://ccthreshers.users2.50megs.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111221047/http://www.ohtm.org/eng_corliss.html to http://www.ohtm.org/eng_corliss.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)