mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circular arc hull Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circular_arc_hull

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  06:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Circular arc hull

[edit]
Circular arc hull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. PROD contested in the grounds that the nomination was done with "zero prior research", which I find a bit odd, as this is the general Google search yield, this is the news archive search, this is Scholar (minus patent filings), and this is the book search (with patent filings). Deadbeef 05:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ljungstrom sailboat - keep 'Circular arc hull' as a redirect. The hull design seems only to have been used for sailboats, and the only unique feature of the Ljungstrom sailboat seems to be the hull design. I can see no good reason to have two articles on the same object. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Circular arc hulls long pre-date Ljungstrom, although his design was distinct. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 1ou hav8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep If it existed before the designer, then just have a separate article for it. Is this taught in university level textbooks on shipbuilding or historic ships? Someone from WikiProject Ships should know about this sort of thing. I'll go ask them. Dream Focus 23:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think people are confusing two entirely different things here: hulls which are circular in cross section (at least up to the waterline), which are anything but new, and probably go back to the dugout canoe, and the Ljungstrom sailboat hull, which isn't actually circular in cross section, but instead consists of a hull having a cross section of two arcs of a constant radius, meeting in the middle at an angle to form a keel - it is a lot easier to understand from a drawing than it is to describe though, take a look here [1]. An article on hulls of circular cross section wouldn't include the Ljungstrom design at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails completely to explain what a circular arc hull is about. As a result, this AfD. There are three aspects to the hulls described here:
  • Transverse frames of circular section. This makes the frames easy to construct. This technique long pre-dates Ljungstrom. Also, unless you know of a theoretically better shape (quite a modern innovation), why not make it circular? Ljungstrom claimed an advantage here (although I don't know if there's any good reason to support his theory) that radius changes were a cause of drag.
It's not substantially changed whether you use a circle or two circular segments with a ridge on the keel line, as Ljungstrom.
  • Transverse frames of constant radius. Perhaps counter-intuitive (although once again, who had a really better shape?) but it makes the jig building a lot simpler. You can make all of the frames on a single jig. This is also related to the two segment hull, rather than a single circular arc: By shifting the centre of the arcs, the beam can be narrowed towards stem and stern and the hull section proportions changed, even though the jig radius remains constant.
  • Circular arcs from front to back defining the profile of the hull, not the elevation view of the frames. These too are not unique to Ljungstrom. There's a later patent, US 4638753, Henry Marschewski , on this with some clear drawings that illustrate the principle. It also describes the resultant hull as being a segment of a toroid, which is a nice clear image. In this case it's claimed that the toroid hull has stability advantages, presumably (If this is my correct interpretation of the patent, I don't believe the mechanics of it) as such a toroid presents a surface with no normal component to impinging waves, thus is rolled less by them. Note that in naval architecture, like the Davis airfoil, it's not necessary to be theoretically correct, just as long as your final answer happens to work out right, even by chance. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable sources cite that discuss this 'distinct hull design' except in relation to the Ljungstrom sailboat. Why should we cover the same topic twice? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A merge is a reasonable outcome as long as the target notes that the design predates the Ljungstrom sailboat (as noted in discussion above). Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that once we start writing about more general 'circular arc' hull designs, we are going into WP:OR territory - we'd need a source that actually covers 'circular arc' hulls as a topic, and makes clear what its defining characteristics are. This article as it stands at least makes clear what its topic is - the Ljungstrom sailboat hull. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.