Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windmill (oxy)hydrogen hybrid ship.jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Windmill_(oxy)hydrogen_hybrid_ship.jpg

Out of scope. Yet another bizarre invention from this troll. Oh, and my dog could do a better quality drawing. Globbet (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Windmill ships are real (if rare), but as far as I'm aware, they all use mechanical or direct electrical transmissions. --Carnildo (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I don't know. This ship would really work, and I think there have been experiments similar to this one. Bad quality drawing on itself doesn't justify deletion IMO. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

•  Delete Delete - I didn't appreciate this one at first as it's so badly drawn that I couldn't even see what it was.

This isn't a "windmill ship" as such (that's not the problem here) or even a windmill. It's a drawing of an oxy-hydrogen cycle used to replace a mechanical transmission, which is ridiculous. That's in itself reason to delete as misleading fabrication.

Also see File:Rotorsail_(oxy)hydrogen_hybrid_ship.JPG, which is much the same. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Interesting concept, but quite fantastic. Image is (was?) in use, though. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

•  Keep; (surprisingly) in use. –Tryphon^☂ 10:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It still needs to be removed. It's en:WP:OR to claim that a windmill ship can be built with an oxy-hydrogen transmission (oxy-hydrogen is the problem, not windmills). I'd remove it myself, but I'd prefer it if another editor did so, as I want to make it clear that these deletions aren't just a purely personal vendetta. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but it has to be sorted out on the projects where it's in use (there's no COM:OR policy), not here. We won't delete it while it's in use, and we shouldn't delete it until there's a consensus not to use it on that article. I'm glad you did not remove it yourself. –Tryphon^☂ 13:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

•  Keep (depending on outcome, see text) I don't exactly see why oxyhydrogen couln't be produced from seawater, aldough I concur that the image leaves out some things (ie the seawater tank may require a filter to eliminate the salt, ...) Perhaps it would be useful to look for an image to show the production process of oxyhydrogen first. BTW the "oxyhydrogen cycle" doesn't "replace" the mechanical transmission, it still uses a mechanical transmission (drive shaft), but the oxyhydrogen is simply used as a temporary energy store. If the oxhydrogen cycle is demonstrated not to be possible here, we can alter image name and text to simply "hydrogen" instead.

• Please don't add a helpful diagram of your "filter to remove salt"...

Oxyhydrogen is a demonstrable scientific process of physics and chemistry. It's not a practically demonstrable engineering process for installation on a small boat. There aren't even any "windmill ships" - there are a tiny handful of windmill boats, all of which are experimental, lightweight, and working on the very boundaries of practical technology, probably beyond the bounds of robust engineering that can survive a life at sea.

There is no track record of oxy-hydrogen transmission in conjunction with windmill boats. There's not even a track record of oxy-hydrogen in practical use with wind-power, or for vehicles! For you to add this to such an article is pure speculation (it's well beyond WP:OR). To draw it and present it here on Commons is a lot like this image, an "Atomic locomotive" drawn in the Eagle comic of 1952. It's not wrong to do this, it's within Commons scope to do so, but only if it's presented as a speculative idea for the future.

I don't believe your image here meets the Commons scope of being educational. It might fail just for its poor quality - but I'd always advocate fixing what we can, where we can, before seeking to delete. Where it fails though (not just "isn't useful" but is actually harmful, thus not educational) is that it's misleading to present a currently impractical future technology as if it's already a workable technology of today. That's misleading, it fosters an incorrect impression, it's wrong for Commons.

Maybe if you did re-draw it as a fiction and make this clear, it might become acceptable. There are many forms of "hydrogen economy car concept" that it would be valuable to draw, even though they're as yet unworkable. These would have to be done carefully, with sources. One might show three or four cars: Petrol, Hydrogen (today), Hydrogen (projected with current development technology), Hydrogen (speculative viable future). The difference would show the amount of internal volume used by each engine and fuel store technology, and the passenger/load space remaining. We don't have practical hydrogen cars today because the storage systems are too bulky / heavy / costly and use up too much space inside the car. Showing their evolution, and how far we still have to go before a "useful" car with "useful" load space (i.e. do we have to become 30%, 50% or 300% better at storing hydrogen before we can make useful cars?), would be a valuable and instructive diagram. Even though speculative (hopefully based on good sources), it would be useful because it presented itself as forward-looking speculation, not merely as a completed mechanism that exists today.

I wouldn't mind changing the text to present it as fiction if it is required, anyone btw can do this to my images, no need to ask me permission for this. I also wouldn't mind to change the filename of the current image and change the text showing that it uses electrochemical batteries instead. However, my primary motivation for the image was that current vessels still use internal combustion engines, so it would be best to keep this and simply change the fuel to something that can be reproduced on board (ie hydrogen was only one of the many fuels). Perhaps we can choose something following the discussion at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hydrogen-based_domestic_energy_storage_(ICE).svg ?

KVDP (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The idea of removing the oxygen just highlights more technical naivety. Oxygen isn't as much of a problem as hydrogen, and having made the stuff, you'd want to keep hold of the stored energy that it represented. Your diagrams fail because you don't do the research legwork beforehand. Just taking an old diagram and writing "Insert Stirling Engine here" isn't good enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Finally, Globbet, I didn't know you had such artistic dogs, you MUST spend a lot of time with them. I do see potential here to reduce the time I spend on the images, are your dogs for hire ? KVDP (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't support some of the comments here, but I've been just as guilty of that sort of reaction myself.

I don't (for the record) see you as any sort of troll or vandal. I believe you're well-intentioned and keen, however with great enthusiasm also comes great responsibility. This is an encyclopedia. We have a responsibility to include things that are accurate, exclude things that are incorrect or misleading. Your hit rate for accuracy really isn't good and it's wasting a lot of time for all of us. Can you please try and research a bit harder before putting pen to paper. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am sorry, I should not have put troll. I have nothing against strongly held convictions, so long as they do not become fanaticism, but I do think KVDP is overzealous in the manner of support of his (non-gender-specific throughout) green point of view to the point that this makes him something of a nuisance at the least. His actions are pervasive and sometimes fairly discreet. As an example of the extent of the problem, look at the description on this image (the file name is 'wrong' too), used at Tractor. In trying to understand KVDP, I find it difficult to guess at his age, as much of his work looks like that of an over-enthusiastic teenager, yet the blog, last entry 2008, gives an address at Columbia University. I do have a suspicion, but no more, that he might be deliberately disruptive in some misguided way. His user page points to a blog, at which the subheading points to Sabotage.

None the less, assuming good faith for now, I would urge KVDP to be more considerate of his fellow contributors. Work that is not good enough is being, and will continue to be, found out and rejected. But this is a huge burden on a lot of people who have much better things to do, and who would be delighted to support KVDP in improving the quality of his input (but not by making better images of impractical ideas). A smaller number of well thought out, carefully researched, accurate, and well written or drawn contributions would be more effective than his present low quality scatter-gun approach. If he does not know enough about engineering science to know what is sound, then he should seek advice or avoid technical topics rather than making indiscriminate contributions. That way KVDP may be able to be more effective by presenting real reviewed research into the possibilities of green technologies to a wider audience. Our dog, unfortunately, is unwell at present. Globbet (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, we'll disregard this Globbet, I know I can be of a nuisance sometimes, aldough that is never my intention. As for supporting green ideals, yes I'll never promote technology that I myself think shouldn't be used (and which I don't use). That said, I do keep try to keep it realistical, and differ on many points ie when compared to true environmentalists. As for the low-quality scatter-gun approach, I generally work from the wikipedia and try to complete the images that are still missing on articles and definitly still need uploading to the encyclopedia (often found in plentiful supply). I thus also don't always put the visual representation at a high priority, it just needs to clarify the article. Offcourse I don't have any schooling in engineering, so I inevitably make some mistakes, especially if there isn't much information to be found online, magazines, ... about the subject. That said, these are mostly only minor ones, and don't happen that often (other editors btw make them too once and a while) and can be often be fixed in a small update of the image. For the discovery of the rare mistakes I rely to some degree on the wikipedia community itself, and indeed on more experienced individuals such as yourself which did have schooling in the matter. Where needed, I also agree on larger updates, image renaming, and/or modifying the entire image, but only if in the modified version still fits with the article, and roughly attains the objectives for which I made the image in the first place; at what way this is achieved is thus of no importance. Once a suitable solution has been reached, I also agree on doing the update myself, atleast depending on the time I have and my graphical skills (JPG/PNG is something I'm become somewhat better in, SVG is still a mess). As for my age Globbet, it's 23, and the adress you mention is something I asked permission for with Dickson Despommier in a e-mail, thinking that perhaps we might of cooperate a bit more (we swapped some ideas following overlapping intrests (ie on agriculture), ...). This pretty much came to a halt dough, and I'll probably change this adress (ie to Appropedia's adress, ...) some time later-on (Appropedia still doesn't have a central organisation set up). As for the sabotage, yes it seems I placed a redirect, but sabotage isn't quite monkeywrenching, which is what I actually meant.

KVDP (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)