Jump to content

Talk:Henri Coandă

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

English translation

[edit]

I took the liberty of improving the English of the translated quotation in the "Quotes" section. However, I'd love to see the original to verify that it is translated correctly. It's not in the (rather extensive) Romanian-language Wikipedia article from which I have been drawing most of this material. -- Jmabel 07:17, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've brought in the list of Awards and Medals from the Romanian-language site. However, I'm a little skeptical about its accuracy, especially (1) the vagueness of the first New York listing and (2) the actual names of the various medals. I see essentially the same list reproduced around the web, apparently first published in Romanian and then translated or mistranslated from there. If someone who likes to do the kind of research that actually involves hitting library archives rather than just browsing the web wants to work on one aspect of this article, that list might merit a good fact-check. -- Jmabel 08:11, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I removed the first one on this list since a bunch of people throwing you a party is neither an award, nor a medal.

"Liceu" is romanian for "Highschool" [User:Mihai] 19 Dec 03

Agreed, in terms of the age of the students but the word is well-known in English (from the French) and the curriculum, as I understand it, resembles a French liceu far more than an American high school. Similarly, in an article about a German, I would not translate gymnasium. -- Jmabel 17:38, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

User:Greyengine5 recently changed "the world's first jet plane" to "the world's first thermojet aircraft." There were also some other related edits. I believe he is subtantially correct (a thermojet is not the same thing as what we usually call a "jet"), but I do believe that this was the first aircraft to use jet propulsion of any sort. Unless I am wrong (and this is not an area were I am expert), the article should say as much. -- Jmabel 17:33, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From opening paragraph: "the parent of the modern jet aircraft." Hardly. His jet engine was nothing like a modern jet and his aircraft crashed on its only outing (amendment made to later section). I would suggest rewording along the lines of "one of the precursors of jet aircraft", but leave out 'modern' (he used a piston to to drive the compressor rather than a turbine) and 'the' (he was one of many, not The). What do others think? Emeraude 23:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect that "precursor" would be a better choice. - Jmabel | Talk 03:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coanda himself described this 1910 aircraft in great detail in numerous patents. It was a ducted fan. No fuel injection, no combustion. This is also how it was described at the Paris air-show. His pathetic attempts to steal the cradit for other people's inventions 30 years later are just sad.Romaniantruths (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Romaniantruths (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WW2

[edit]

Where and how did he spent World War II? --Error 00:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is practically devoid of any information on the man after the age of 30. Cripipper 12:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is this reference I found on page 174 of Flight International: "Two years after the fall of France - towards the end of 1942 - M. Coanda recieved a contract from the Germans for the developement of a propulsion system for ambulance snow sleds, ostensibly for use in Russia..." Romaniantruths (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is probably related to the Sled he made for the Czar Back before WWI. The old sled is described in contemporary reports as being driven by a ducted fan like device (popular mechanics, Mar 1911). This makes sense since what I've seen of the Flight International article about the sled he designed to assist the Nazi war effort discusses Coanda using venturis to increase the thrust of his sled. This also raises some question about his post-WWII claims that his 'turbo-propulseur' was a motorjet and not just a ducted fan. Romaniantruths (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Coandă - the parent of the modern jet aircraft

[edit]

In the history of the aviation Coandă is credited for two major discoveries: The Coanda-1910 airplane and the Coandă effect. The revolutionary plane that Coandă built in 1910 was way ahead of its time by the fact that it had no propeller and it used a reactive jet for propulsion; The issue is that he was the very first to build a jet engine, regardless of the technology; of course, in today's jet engine, the technology used is the gas turbine and not the thermojet, but this doesn't change the fact that he was the first who thought of that.

A simple search on the references will guide you the same answer: Coandă is credited today 100 % as the father of the modern jet aircraft.Cristibur 03:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at the sources in the article:
  • [1] says "This was 30 years prior to Heinkle, Campini, and Whittle who have been considered the 'fathers' of jet flight"
  • [2] is a dead link
  • [3] is a list of his patents, so doesn't help us
  • [4] doesn't state he's the father/parent of jet flight
So the only one of the references to discuss this subject says that Heinkle, Campini and Whittle are considered the fathers of jet flight. Let's look at a few more through Google. This Wired article describes him as the "father of the jet engine" (my emphasis) not jet flight or aircraft. This geek.com comment does describe Coanda as the "father of jet planes" but isn't a reliable source. This is another blog entry, so again not reliable for our purposes.
So, please provide a reliable source for this statement, otherwise its just original research. I've added a citation needed tag to it. Thanks, Gwernol 03:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discovery Channel Europe [5] Cristibur 02:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That says "godfather of the modern jet aircraft", which is a colloquialism that does not mean the same as "father of..." or "parent of...". Even if we accepted this, we also need to look at [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] etc. etc. For every citation that Coanda is the "father of the jet age" there are 10-100 that say its someone else. Claiming "Coandă is credited today 100 % as the father of the modern jet aircraft" is simply untrue.
We don't give undue weight to minority opinions. I'm sorry, but this statement really can't stay in the article. I'm going to change it so that it reflects the facts: he was the inventor of the thermojet. Gwernol 02:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[16] (" ... a thermojet is still a jet ...") ... and still searching (I don't have too much time right now) ... btw no need to hurry about the changing, there will be quite a debate. Cristibur 02:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the thermojet is still a jet, that was not the question. What I'm disputing is "Coandă is credited today 100 % as the father of the modern jet aircraft" which is clearly not true. Its not even true to say that some people say he is the father of the modern jet aircraft; almost no-one makes this claim. Its such a minority view that it shouldn't be included in the article. Just stick to the fact, that he was the inventor of the thermojet. There is no need to make falsely inflated claims for him: let his real achievements stand on their own - they are very impressive. Gwernol 02:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed opinions on this (it's my blog which is linked to above, btw). On the one hand, the Coanda-1910 was powered by a thermojet; a thermojet is a jet; ergo the Coanda-1910 was a jet aircraft, and the first such. On the other, it was a technological dead-end which, as far as I can tell, had little or no influence on the aircraft designers who developed the direct ancestors of the jets we use today. I think it is fair to say that aviation historians generally wouldn't consider Coanda "the father of the jet aircraft" (after all, the Coanda-1910 never achieved sustained, controlled flight) -- whether that's fair or not can be debated, but it's the current consensus view which should be summarised in Wikipedia. Airminded 03:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This looks more and more like a popularity contest to me. Did you guys try searching Google in Romanian, German or Italian? The technological progress happens through trial, testing and error. And it happens in increments. Coanda had an accident, he should have continued working on the jet engine. Had he done so, I have no doubt that he would have reached the same solutions as Whittle and von Ohain latter. Unfortunately, at his time, the normal propeller engine had a lot of potential left, and Coanda could get no more funding for his unconventional jet engine. The funding appeared only when the propeller engine reached its limit, after 30 years. And it is possible that Whittle, von Ohain and Campini knew about his attempts. Even if the people forget, the scientific community does not forget easily. Campini even built his plane in the same place where Coanda built his. Saying that Campini was one of the fathers but Coanda was not makes no sense to me.67.81.182.37 02:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it's possible that Whittle, Von Ohain, or Campini knew about his attempts? He never made any attempts. The 1910 Coanda was a ducted fan design, and was described as such at the paris air show. All contemporary accounts make this clear, as they also make clear that he never got off the ground. The story about it being a jet didn't come into existence until after WWII, and is completely unsubstantiated. Romanianlies (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the the talk page for Coanda 1910 Romaniantruths (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And while you're at it look at the patents for Coanda's turbopropulseur. They describe the device in great detail, as patents do, but say NOTHING about the injection or combustion of fuel.Romaniantruths (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The very description is clear: "the plane used a 4-cylinder piston engine to power a compressor, which was intended to propel the craft by a combination of suction at the front and airflow out the rear instead of using a propeller. The nature of this drive system is clearly described in several patents Coanda took out on it in 1910(French), and 1911" this is NOT the description of a ducted fan, however someone tries to name it such. It is the description of a reactive engine. There is no fan or ducted fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.118.2.13 (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the description is that of a ducted fan. Look at the diagrams and see the centrifugal fan, and the duct it sits in. Calling it something else doesn't change what it is. But I can see that at least you're in full agreement with me that it's not a jet. Romaniantruths (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caravelle and Coanda - surely not?

[edit]

The article states

"the Coandă-1916, with two propellers mounted close to the tail; this design was to be reprised in the "Caravelle" transport aeroplane, for which Coandă was a technical consultant."

I'd fix the link to point to the Caravelle Airliner, if there was any evidence linking this twin jet design with a twin pusher propellor one I've never seen. Is that the right Caravelle? Number774 (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COANDA FRAUD

[edit]

Does anyone have ANY evidence that this thing was a jet? Of course not. All the patents Coanda filed describe this as a ducted fan, all the coverage of the 1910 air show it was shown at describe it as a ducted fan. Coanda tried to use forged documents to grab the credit for others inventions, but his forgery was pathetic and fooled nobody.Romaniantruths (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC) A 4-cylinder piston engine to power a compressor is not a "ducted fan" or a kind of "ducted fan". It is a thermojet. Is there any evidence for any fraud? I haven't seen such, but the very acid comments of a biased person who signs under "Romaniantruths" nickname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.118.2.13 (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking up the word thermojet, if you learn what one is then maybe you'll be able to understand why you're completely wrong. It has compressed air mixed with fuel and burned to produce thrust. Coanda's very lame attempt at a ducted fan had no fuel injection and no combustion. And it also had no usable thrust. Ample evidence of his sorry attempts at fraud are available to anyone who looks for them. You could try looking up Coanda 1910 on wikipedia for starters. Then when you see the clear evidence of his ridiculous lies you can let us know how wrong you were.Romaniantruths (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you mention the name and pages from some old magazines which nobody can verify what is exactly write there you prouve just nothing, just your own frustrations, Romaniantruths. Either you present the pages or the brevets, a facsimile or something, either you agree with mainstream believe and scientific world who say it was the first jet engine and first jet aircraft. Yes, it was a rudimentar jet engine and aircraft, a thermojet or air-jet, and not a turbojet, but there are too ramjets or scramjets etc. not just the turbojet, fact is he was the first who put a jet engine created by him on a plane (a revolutionary plane not just regarding the propulsion system) created by him. Do you think that if his invention wasnt true, academic researchers, French Academy and so on, wouldnt react and reveal the truth? Its just some british frustration who try to stole this reality, and make them look like the inventors of jet engine and jet planes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.215 (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can verify all these references on the internet, which is where I got them. Since you are having trouble performing this basic task I'll make it childishly simple for you(not that I am in any way suggesting that you are childishly simple, you are obviously a mature and brilliant individual). Go to the Henri Coanda page. Scroll down to the bottom. Click on "The Patents Of Henri Coanda". Read his patents for the turbopropulseur, where he describes it in his own clear and unambiguous words as to function. These patents describe a ducted fan, and not a jet. The other references can all be found on google books, which I assume you can figure out for yourself. These references mostly predate the invention of the jet engine, and Henri Coanda's shameful attempt to steal the credit for this invention from all those who played some role in it's developement. I might also add that websites repeating Coanda's various and inconsistant stories are not evidence of anything but the fact that a lot of websites do shoddy research(all they had to do was examine his patents.) You have made various points in your statement which really should be refuted, such as the way you set yourself up as the ultimate arbiter of 'mainstream believe and scientific world', but I can tell from your note that you are an individual of rare qualities and high-minded Ideals who will see the error of your ways as soon as you follow those directions and read the references. Romaniantruths (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You could try looking up Coanda 1910 on wikipedia for starters" -- of course, this page was heavily edited by you and thus it proves your point. Genius! Hey, do you know what Wikipedia cannot be used as reference, maybe exactly because of this little detail. Also tone down your rhetoric "lies", "lier", "shameful attempt", "Romanianlies" or "Romaniantruths" doesn't make you look like an impartial observer. man with one red shoe 19:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try looking up Coanda 1910 on Wikipedia for starters because the Coanda 1910 is what you're whining about, Redfoot. There you can find some things called 'references', and something else called a 'talk page',which is where the Coanda 1910 would naturally be discussed. In addition, If you spent less time whining about my choice of words, and more time actually reading the posts you're commenting about you'd see that directions to finding all these references so childishly simple that you shouldn't have too much problem following them are listed above on this very page.Romaniantruths (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt find any "turbopropulseur" there, maybe you can be more specific and point out exactly where you find that patent, and give a direct link. There is anyway the French patent 418.401 from 1910 where the engine and turbine details are presented, and other pictures and details are in archives of Musée de l'Air et de l'Espace in Paris. And they never put in question the fact that Coanda 1910 had a jet engine, quite contrary they always presented it as an avantgarde aircraft with a new propusion system. Not the "turbojet" as is used today, but neverthless a "jet" engine of a more rudimentar type. Coanda presented his ideas about jet suported flight in 1910 at Superori Aeronautic School in Paris and in french magazine "La Tehnique Aeronautique", in june 1910. I understand you have a favourite as the "father of jet flight", but the history is not always as we wish to be. Henri Coanda is the inventor of jet engine (air-jet or thermo-jet or motor-jet, how you wish to call it) and builder of the first jet propelled aircraft. Yes, an english and an german will create some 30 years later the "turbo-jet", a new jet more fiabile and powerful, but fact is that first "jet" was the one of Coanda, and except some fanboys from Britain (or maybe even Germany) who doesnt recognize that, scholars and scientific world never deny this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.189 (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turbopropulseur is what he called his ducted fan. If you can't figure out which of the patents cover his ducted fan, try looking up the patent numbers I listed in the references and on the discussion page for coanda 1910, and on the Henri coanda page as well. They've probably been deleted without discussion again by another anonymous Romanian I.P. fanboy with a 1-hour editing history( do you know anyone like that, 79.116.207.189?), but they're still in the history. I don't see any French patent 418.401 listed under the patents of Henri Coanda, nor do I see where you've suggested this mysterious patent might be found. I see you also expect your stories about magazine articles and museum displays that supposedly prove your point to be taken as true. As well as your assertions about how the whole world views this shameful liar Coanda. Are there special rules that only apply to you for some reason? I see you have this Coanda as your favorite as the 'father of jet flight' but, as you say, "the history is not always as wish to be'. I have never made any assertions as to the father of jet flight other than to say that this Coanda person obviously isn't it. I also see you have referred to the turbopropulseur as an air-jet in your tendentious screed. Does this mean that you're willing to admit that there was no fuel injection or combustion going on in the Coanda 1910 engine?Romaniantruths (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you dont trust "my stories" about some magazines, why to trust yours? And why do you think the French Air and Space Museum who have that patent doesnt say that Coanda 1910 wasnt a "jet" aircraft? Why do you think peoples who write those books in the bibliography presented here (not by me) said Coanda was the inventor of the jet engine? Do you think they didnt study a little before to write their books, and you, an anonymus guy from wikipedia with a an agenda of your own, know better? The engine was clearly not a simple "ducted fan" as you try to imply, but a "motorjet, thermojet, airjet", however is called, and is clearly a "jet", wheter you liked or not. The one thing that's common to all "jet" engines (thermojet, turbojet, ramjet, scramjet, rocket if you wish) is that they expel essentially heated or compressed air to propel the aircraft. And Coanda 1910 cleary had such an engine. Observing the burning gases expelled by the engine Coanda discovered later the "Coanda effect" and based on that he have 2 patents (in France again), one about the "Coanda effect" and one about the "aerodina lenticulara"/flying saucer, a discoidal flying machine who use jet engines and Coanda effect to fly. And guess what, he send that patent in 1932 and was aproved in 1934, few years before Whittle or von Ohain obtain their turbojet engine working and years before turbojet rudimentary aircrafts took flight. So the only fraud is in your mind, serious institutions as French Air and Space Museums or scholars from Smithsonian from US clearly afirm that Coanda is indeed the "fatehr of the jet engine" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.70 (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you repeatedly where these magazines are available for free reading on the internet. I have also told you repeatedly where to find the patents as well. Have you bothered to read any of them? You're the one who seems to expect any assertion you make to be blindly accepted as the truth. And why do you think that any patent filed years before the invention of the motorjet would say that something wasn't a motorjet? If there really is such a patent it would be filed with the patent office, not the Air and space museum, and it also wouldn't say that the Coanda 1910 wasn't a nuclear reactor, or a flying saucer, or a revolutionary new way to manufacture mentos (the freshmaker!). I also see that you're now trying to expand the definition of jet engine to include anything that emits a jet of gas. This highly dubious assertion would mean that the jet engine was invented by Heron Of Alexandria more than 1500 years earlier. But first things first; are you, or are you not, asserting that the Coanda 1910 burned fuel in it's 'turbopropulseur' (called a 'suction fan' by all those magazines you apparently haven't read), or are you arguing that all ducted fans are jet engines. If you are arguing the latter then we'll have to discuss the various ducted fans Octave Chanute discusses in Progress In Flying Machines, which was published before Coanda even started the seven years it took him to get through high-school.(This is also available for free reading on Googlebooks.)Romaniantruths (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Man, you are the exponent of why wikipedia sucks many times and is not seen as something reliable by many peoples. You erased some 7 books put by someone here, all saying that Coanda made an jet powered aircraft, then you told me to look at "googlebooks"? Are you kiding? Then you put some names of magazines and told me to search for them, without to present a link for them? The patent you said about, conveniently was "erased" then (how someone can erase stuff from that site?). And real scholars and scientists who work for prestigious institutions are all dumb and was tricked by Coanda now, and just you was smart and get how the things was? Those images and drawnings of engine and patent i said are in custody of Air Museum, where is a replica of the plain too. And guess what, i never saw someone from there saying what you say here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.209 (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware the I am required to supply links to all references. The patent was removed from this page, along with many other references. The removal was done, without comment on this page, simultaneously with the addition of the seven references you're complaining about my removal of. I just reverted the edit that removed these patents (and the earlier references by people who actually covered the Airshow where this plane was displayed). If you feel assertions made here should all have links perhaps you can set a good example for me by providing an internet link to this jet patent you refer to and it's related drawings. Your claim that you never saw someone from Air Museum saying what I say here is something I will certainly consider, but what if you weren't there, or weren't looking, when they said it? I have no memory of refering to real scholars and scientists as all being dumb, or of saying that only I am aware of the ducted fan nature of the 1910 Coanda Biplane. Perhaps you would be so kind as to post a link to where I said this as well? Romaniantruths (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, you did remove several books writed by historians of aviations, who clearly searched materials for their books in archives, at Air Museums, they saw patents and drawnings and technical references, etc. I dont think they look at wikipedia for them and i dont see yet other books where Coanda 1910 is called a simple ducted fan not even remotly related with a jet. Majority of peoples back then (1910) dont even understand whats about with that new aircraft, and how can fly if doesnt have a propeller. It was something so unusual and weird that even Gustav Eiffel told to Coanda that is pitty he was born some 30 years too early for its time. It is your choice to not trust those peoples who write the books you erased, and you didnt said directly they are dumb, but erasing those books and not taking those scholars in consideration is an indirect conclusion. As well you try to imply that just the "turbojet" is a "jet", which is false again, there are diferent types of jets. As well, as i said, Coanda used the jet propulsion ideas and Coanda effect in early 30's (so before Whittle and von Ohain make their turbojets) for that "aerodina lenticulara" discoidal flying aircraft, and the patent for that was based on what he did and saw and discovered at Coanda 1910 aircraft, including during its short accidental flight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.120 (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Claiming these references were by "historians of aviations, who clearly searched materials for their books in archives, at air museums, they saw patents and drawings and technical references etc." Doesn't make it so. Did you think you could get away with saying this without anyone checking? It is entirely untrue. As I suspect are many other unsupported claims you have made here. However these claims can actually be checked. They're bogus!Romaniantruths (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good point, how can a reference from 1910 prove that it wasn't a jet? If Coanda 1910 was one of the first (kind of) jets then people at that time wouldn't even know how to name it or how to categorize it, since it looks like there were other ducted fans engines at that time they normally put it in that category. By the way, as I said, I am not knowledgeable in the field, but I've seen pictures of ducted fan aircrafts and they don't even look like Coanda 1910. man with one red shoe 21:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Redfoot, I see you've taken my advice to go to the Hemri Coanda page with your Questions. It is inspiring to see you benefit from my suggestions since, as you say, you are not knowledgible in this field. As to your question, how can a reference from 1910 prove that it wasn't a jet? Simple: it can explain in detail how the Coanda 1910 worked. The references I have repeatedly refered you and your very special friend to do exactly this. In our previous conversations about this topic you have refused to examine these references. How about now, old pal? Will you please take a look at them? Just for me? Pretty please? With sugar and spice on it?--- yours fondlyRomaniantruths (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't call me "Redfoot" please have the decency to use my username it's not that hard to type, it's the second time I ask you not to call me that. Second, yes, I will examine the references as soon as you'll provide the links. man with one red shoe 23:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of any Wikipedia rule that requires me to supply you with links. Perhaps you can tell me where I can find such a rule in Wikipedia. But back to your question: Do you see, from my explanation, how a reference from 1910 can prove that it wasn't a jet? I eagerly await your response.Romaniantruths (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new link, which clarify more the problem. A mention from there "the story and a model of the 1910 Coanda Jet are on display in the foyer of the Aeronautical museum at Le Bourget airport outside Paris". The author which can be acused of not knowing what he talking about stated that Coanda 1910 was undoubtely the first jet aircraft, and he clearly know what appear on that French Museum as well, where original story, planns, drawnings and a model are presented. If it wasnt to be a jet, i dont think he will write that. I hope as well that you wouldnt erase this link as you did with those seven history aviation book previously. And about the british patent from 1911 you show, there is not the original one regarding Coanda 1910, but another thing, related with improvments for a propeller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.23 (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The seven "history aviation books" you refer to include a work of juvenile fiction, a pictorial history of Romania, A collection of Quotations, and several books about aviation which just repeated Coanda's post WWII claims (try checking the references). If you hadn't deleted all my references when you added them, they wouldn't have been deleted when I restored my references. You had already been warned about deleting references when you did this. The reference you just added consists of someone claiming that the Coanda was a jet without any substantiation. It doesn't even Identify who this person is. Is it you? And I notice that over the claim that the Coanda was a jet is a picture of the aircraft with a readable hand-written caption calling it a turbo-prop. These guys can't even make up their minds. Why do you think that this is a more reliable reference than all the aeronautical journals which covered the 1910 flight show? Or the patents for that aircraft? Or Charles Gibbs-Smith, a highly regarded aviation historian? Maybe because the title of the PDF calls it the facts? You keep making all sorts of claims, but still haven't shown any reliable evidence. Stop changing this page unless you find some evidence of your claims that is more compelling than the substantial evidence of their falsity.(good luck with that!)Romaniantruths (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe Charles Gibbs-Smith is a highly regarded aviation historian, in UK. I can show too some highly regarded historians from Romania who write about Coanda. Thats why some independent aviation historians are more reliable, and i will add several books again (and i hope you will have the decency to not erase them again). Btw, i didnt erase anything from you before you erase those books (which wasnt even posted by me). About the PDF document, i suppose you didnt read it, it was writed by a very respectable american rocket scientist, and he mention about the Coanda-1910 and his all story, presented at Le Bourget Museum of Air and Space. He mention as well that it was undoubtly the first jet aircraft in the world and i dont think he would make such claims if he doesnt know about the aircraft and its history as was presented there. Nor do i think that peoples from that Museum who clearly saw (or even have there) the original french patent of Coanda will presented in a wrong way, or have Coanda much later drawning new stuff on the old patent (as you seem to imply) I higly doubt that some writers for a magazine know better then him, or that a patent from UK talking about the improvements for a propeller is the same with the engine of Coanda-1910. As i said most peoples doesnt understand back then how the engine functioned, it was, as Eiffel said, some 30-50 years ahead of its time. And if you see how an aircraft look like in 1910, compared with Coanda-1910, you will see he was right. None of your sources present the original patent and some are just magazines, its like i read today journals to make an idea about something neither i, neither the writers there dont understand well. Thtas why i stick with aviation historians who have researched more in deep the problem. And some independent ones, not a romanian or a british —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.72 (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the PDF document, and understood it as well. It was NOT written by Stine, It just uses pictures supplied by Stine. The captions on the pictures are credited to Stine, but the only caption on a picture of the 1910 Coanda describes it as a turbo-prop! This should actually be a bit of a relief to you since the site calls the plane a ducted fan as often as it calls it a jet. All in all, the site refers to it as a jet, a turbo-prop, and a ducted fan(one time each). It also quotes Dec 10, not Dec 16 as the date for Coanda's alledged flight. It also asserts that Stine was merely repeating Coanda's claims. All this in about one page of text. Not that it matters much since This commercial site is not a reliable source anyway.
As for the patent(GB191112740(A)), read it. You'll find that the first paragraph explains that it is identical to Coanda's French patent of the previous year(the one you assert is for a motorjet engine). Coanda was taking advantage of the 1907 patent act which allows a one year grace period for filing a French patent in Britain and retaining the original priority date(may 30).
I am not Implying that Coanda drew new stuff on an old patent. I am quoting a reliable secondary source that asserts Coanda's presenting falsified documents.
I find it rather suprising that you assert that no english aviation historian is trustworthy. Is this a nationalistic attack on your part, or a racial slur? And if, as you say, you don't trust the word of any Romanians either then Why do you trust the claims of Henri Coanda in the first place?
Your mode of operation seems well established: Any Individual you use as a reference is automatically described by you as an aviation historian who has deeply researched the problem. None of them actually are. Any claim made in support of the jet story is proof because the claimant must know and must be telling the truth, otherwise he wouldn't say that. Any claim that Coanda wasn't the inventor of the jet engine is either biased because the claimant is English, or wrong because Coanda invented the jet so he must be wrong. In addition you erase references and add unreferenced statements to the page that don't even have the minimal benefit of internal consistency(the aerodina lenticulara couldn't pass it's wind-tunnel test because Coanda didn't have 12 jet Engines? Do you see the problem with this statement?).Romaniantruths (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is what Stine said too, and i will put a link to Smithsonian Museum archives, where Coanda aircraft is called directly "the world first jet". The patent you present, i see the title is something like "improvements of a propeller" or something like that, is not the patent regarding Coanda-1910, which you dont show it until now (and i doubt you can interpret corectly even that first patent). Thats why i trust more real and known aviation historians and scientist who surely have a better understanding of the problem. I put 2 links from 2 International Aeronautics and Astronautics simposions (i hope the scientist who was invited there are good enough for you), one of some german scientists (from Technology University of Dresden) who make 10 years of researches for their book (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3105820), as well the opinion held by Stine and those from Smithsonian Museum of Air and Space and other american and romanian aviation historians. I didnt wanted to use romanian sources not because i dont trust them, but to not look biased. In exchange you show me titles of old magazines (mostly which cannot be verified) where are writed couple lines about the aircraft and its propulsion sistem, which probably the authors have little knowledge, it was more like exotic news put in a corner of a page, without too many details. And of course, the Gibbs-Smith (second hand source), which obviously you trust more then Coanda for ex (first hand source). Why do you think that americans, germans, romanians, french, all acknowledge that Coanda-1910 was the world first jet (i agree, not the turbojet mostly used today, but nevertheless a jet), and just some brits consider is not? Is not that i am racist or something, far from me that, it was just an observation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.217 (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you STILL haven't read any of the pre-WWI references? Why are you ignoring the only evidence from people who actually saw the aircraft, and heard the explanation of it's function from Coanda (before he started telling wild stories in a desperate attempt to grab the credit for the work of others)?
Building an ever expanding list of people who assumed Coanda was telling the truth but never examined his claims critically isn't a particularly productive endeavour. Have you found any source that addresses the many problems with his story? Have you found even one single source about his motorjet claims that predates the 1930s invention of the motorjet?Romaniantruths (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Man, you are really pathetic. Are you assume that lots of scientists and historian aviation are some idiots, and just you (or Gibbs and soem Royal british aeronautic institute know whats hpaened? The old magazines (which have couple lines writed about the plane, clearly having no idea whats about with it) are pretty much ussles, they just recorded the event. And did ever ask why just Gibbs said that, and all others from the other parts of the world go with Coanda? Wake up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.206.162 (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "old magazines" you refer to are technical and aviation journals. Since you characterize them as having, "couple lines writed about the plane", and,"clearly having no Idea what's about with it" you clearly still haven't read them. Why is it that you describe every individual who has ever said that this plane was a jet as an Aviation historian who studied the problem in depth and examined the patents. You have made false claims of this nature many times on this page. Your assertion that "all others from other parts of the world go with Coanda" is also demonstrably false. Romaniantruths (talk) 02:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avrocar?

[edit]

This needs explaining. Why is it notable that he designed something that was the same shape as the avrocar? So did the inventors of the discus, the frisbee, and the wok. Romaniantruths (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Man, your bias is so big that you become almost delirious. So now you compare a complicated aircraft with a frisbee just because they have somehow the same general shape, and, obviously, because was invented (again, for your despair) first time by Coanda? Whats next, why to talk about "clasical" aircrafts, because the birds (or pterodactils) have first the idea to have wings? This is the page of Henri Coanda and his life, realisations, inventions, creations etc. It is normal to be presented such stuff here, created by him or inspired by his ideas (as the Avrocar was inspired by his "aerodina lenticulara") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.120 (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely gratified to see from your above post that you agree with me that comparing something to the avrocar merely because of it's shape is inappropriate. I will do you the favor of removing the offending comparison forthwith. I was unaware, however, that Coanda invented the frisbee, perhaps you could provide a link to this information? With warmest regardsRomaniantruths (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need to repeat myself, since you either are biased either have comprehension problems. I hope is the first one, but you need to control it after all, its embarasing. Coanda patented in 30`s a lenticular (discoidal) shape aircraft powered by some jet engines and using the Coanda effect. Decades later after that, Avro build a discoidal aircraft using Coanda effect for moving. If you consider that they dont inspire from Coanda, but from a frisbee, to make that Avrocar, then good luck in your plays with the coleagues from kindergarten, we dont have much to talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.92 (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Avrocar is described on the Smithsonian website as emitting a blast of air straight down to provide thrust. In it's low-altitude flight mode the downward blast of air formed a "cushion" which held the Avrocar aloft in the manner of a hovercraft. Transition between this mode and it's non-ground-effect flight mode caused a phenominon refered to as 'tree trunking' which rendered the Avrocar highly unstable. This Doesn't sound like the Coanda effect to me, but maybe I'm just not comprehending you. I hope you don't find this too embarasing. What is the patent number for this revolutionary flying saucer you speak of? And in what country was it patented? Perhaps I would be better able to comprehend it's world-shaking inovation it I could read the actual patent. I am unaware of having, at any time, suggested that the Avrocar was inspired by the frisbee. Could you please provide me with a link to that statement? With The Highest Of Esteem And Warmest Of Regards--Romaniantruths (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the completely un-sited claims about Coanda's 1932 flying saucer, and the illustration of the avrocar which no-one claims as a Coanda invention. What's next? A claim that he invented the bagless cyclonic vacuum?Ion G Nemes (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Avrocar didn't work that way. since you're obviously not familiar with this craft you might want to try checking with the Smithsonian, or at least have a look at the cut-away diagram the you yourself just restored(inappropriately) to this page. Even if the twaddle you posted about how it worked had any basis in fact, your personal opinion about the expense of various forms of research into applications of the Coanda effect would need some sort of reliable reference. Ion G Nemes (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst it does gain some most lift from the geared-drive central fan, horizontal thrust for the Avrocar and at least some component of the lift (certainly all of the control forces) was generated by Coanda effect from the edge nozzles. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The central fan was actually driven by the exhaust from the 3 jet engines which impinged on the outer portion of the vanes. (Not that it's really important in this context, but I'm just saying for clarification.) But the whole Coanda effect connection to this craft seems to come from sources of questionable reliability. Maybe I'm missing something here, but actual Government and airforce museum documents I've found describe its mode of operation in terms that sound more like a simple vectored thrust situation. However I can well appreciate that you might not be interested in opening this can of worms. I personally hope to take this question up on the Avrocar page at some later date.
But for the moment, I'm not really sure where we stand. Is it your intention to re-post the Avrocar stuff based on what you have posted above? If you're right you're right, but I'm skeptical about this personally and would like to compare references. I'm also somewhat curious about your Dyson fan posting. I'm assuming you posted this in good faith, because I'm supposed to, but do you have some reference to cite which establishes that it was Coanda's work which inspired this and not all the others who were using air, or steam, injection to provide forced draft decades before Coanda?Ion G Nemes (talk) 05:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of sources

[edit]

Let's begin a discussion of what the sources say, in detail. We should stick to verifiable and reliable sources, of course. What they say will determine the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Popular Mechanics March 1911. Hearst Magazines. March 1911. p. 359. a suction turbine that takes the place of the ordinary aeroplane propeller
    • This article calls the engine a "suction turbine".

Ok, i see you edited some posts, with no explanation, and re write some alternative history put there by another poster, entirely invented by him (the one with Coanda discovered the effect who bear his name in Eiffel wind tunell or something like that. Well, there is no such thing, and nobody said that until that person post that crap here, which you gladly restored. I am new here, i know that wikipedia is not usualy trusted by most of the peoples, is just a general reference for them, and that is precisely because such biased presentations and crap interpretations. I understand that a neutral point of view must be presented, but i wasnt able to see that here, but just an endless re edited text presenting just one point of view, of some british historian of aviation. About the article from that old magazine. Well, in that time aviation was just started, there was just few airplanes made by few peoples in few countries. All was their own inventions, with diferent styles, wings, engines etc. Nobody know much about this new appeared science, not even those inventors, and much less the journalists. An aircraft as Coanda-1910 was so weird and unusual compared with the other fews in existence, then was even believed it can fly, because it doesnt had a propeller. Except maybe Coanda, the inventor of the engine, nobody understanded well how that was constructed, and how functioned. The name "jet engine" wasnt even invented, didnt existed at that moment. So the journalists who had no knowledge and expertise in that domain, especialy regarding "jet engines" who was something beyond that time used the description they think they know and understand, and their readers might understand as well. Thats why we cant put that much trust in those couple lines writed among many others related with general science stuff in a magazine on that era, and the best is to look at more modern scholars and scientists and historians of aviation. They have studied the patents, the engine, the drawinings, the description of the plane, and have too the knowledge and expertise to understand what kind of engine or aircraft was. Thats why someone like Stine is better then a journalist from that time, who had no expertise in jet engines and just saw the aircraft and couple things about it, without to understand much what was about and who write in the terms he know. I hope that this was clear enough, and pathetic actions as erasing links to books or magazines with serious scholars opinion will not continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.43 (talk • contribs)

I'm guessing you're talking about Flight among other magazines. You might be surprised to see how much the contributers and readers knew, thought and questioned (eg the use of exhaust gases for propulsion or the amount of detail in the construction of an aeroplane or the layout of an engine GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was more about Popular Mechanics, but since you mention Flight, look how they describe Coanda-1910 http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1910/1910%20-%200883.html?search=Coanda%20Paris%20%20Flight%20Salon&tracked=1 A turbine driven aircraft with no propeller. I assume from this know Gibbs that aircraft was buyed by somebody too. I dont know what to say, and how much peoples from Flight knew about the aircraft. Not too much, as i saw, about the details of the engine. Its interesting what that guy asked too, about the use of 2 propellers in a kind of turbine, one moved by the exhaust gases of another (which is not quite Coand idea and engine) and the negative answer he received. Thts why i said that sources from that times are not quite reliable in the sense that they dont understand well the technical feats of some stuff. Aviation just apeared, and most peoples either dont understand much, either was use just with the "normal" airplanes they saw. I read too what Gibbs said, his reason why Coanda wasnt a jet is that if so, the flames will burn the aircraft and the pilot (so he dont know if Coanda added or not gasoline, just make an assumption that if he did, that can happen as he said). But precisely because of that Coanda added those metal plates, to defect the flames away from the plane body and "cockpit". He didnt use either the full power, and when he tried to verify the aircraft, this start to move on. Coanda said then that he was scared to see the flames not deflected, but curved around those metal plates and coming towards him and the plane, thats why he reduced the power and the plane who tooked off crushed. And thats why the aircraft was never saw again, sold or not to that misterious mr Weiman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.26 (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Gibbs-Smith

[edit]

In this letter to the editor of Flight, published 14 October 1960, Charles Gibbs-Smith writes:

Might I suggest Mr Servian looks at pages 220-221 of my new book, where he will find the Coanda case discussed in detail. The extraordinary claim was not made until 1956; and the Coanda sesquiplane, which was shown in the Paris Salon of 1910, was disinterred from its obscurity.
I won't bore Mr Servian with the many details here, but he will see what a delightful claim it is when I tell him that the 'turbo-propulseur' (driven at 4,000 r.p.m. by a 50 h.p. Clerget) was mounted around the nose of the aircraft and was intended to blow back all round the fuselage, including round the pilot as he sat erect in his cockpit (begoggled, one hopes). If this innocent air (and plain air was all it was ever meant to hurl back) was turned into a burning jet, it would have been the most inelegant way of committing suicide ever devised.
The whole claim is naughty nonsense, as Mr Servian will see from the material I have set out in the book. There was never any idea of injecting fuel; the machine never flew; it was never destroyed on test; and Flight noted that it was soon sold to a Monsieur Weyman.
The claim said that after the disastrous crash (which never happened) Coanda wished to begin a 'second aircraft', but 'his funds were exhausted.' Within a year he was gaily exhibiting (in October 1911) a brand new propeller-driven machine at the Reims Concours Militaire, and then went on to a distinguished career in aviation.

(The letter Gibbs-Smith was responding to was one written by T. R. Servian of Croyden, Surrey, England, printed in September 1960 Flight.)

To me, this means that Coanda made no jet claims until 1956 at which time he said the Coanda-1910 was an early jet, that it flew once and crashed, and that he could not continue its development for lack of funds. Gibbs-Smith suggests that any flames in the "plain air" output would have killed the pilot, and he notes that Coanda was not at all short of funds—he dropped his unsuccessful 1910 design and immediately started fabricating a prop-plane which was ready in 1911.

The book Gibbs-Smith was referring to in his letter was The aeroplane: an historical survey of its origins and development, published just a little earlier in 1960. A section entitled "The Coanda Sesquiplane of 1910" begins on page 220, starting with "There has recently arisen some controversy about this machine, designed by..." I consider Gibbs-Smith the ultimate observer of this controversy, impartial yet pointedly direct in his rebuttal to Coanda's claims. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i do not consider Gibbs as the ultimate observer, but Stine and Romanian Academy, it is better now? I will apreciate as well that dumb like retarted and pathetic actions of erase books and links related with the subject (from Stine to one dealing with Coanda effect) will stop. I already said that wikipedia is not reliable precisely because such biased silly actions as you, and the lack of neutrality. Isnt weird that just Gibbs, some more modern Flight articles and Royal Aviation instiute said was not a jet (and their opinion are presented most here) and americans, romanians, germans, french etc.agree it was the first jet, but their opinion is barely represented? As i said Gibbs had no idea what he talk about, he wasnt there to see if Coanda flyied, nor he knows how the engine worked. Yes, the flames might burn the plane and the pilot, thats why Coanda put those metal plates to deflect them, and thats why the plane was burn, and thats why he abandoned the idea for a while, until he managed to understand what happened-see Coanda effect. And yes, nobody back then will want to fund a weird and very unusual aircraft who can kill the pilot and took fire, not Coanda wanted to make waves, as "look, i made a new kind of plane, with a new propulsion sistem, is just that you can burn when he take off". It was something way ahead of that time, as Eiffel told him, so until he understand what happened he renounced to that idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.244 (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gibbs-Smith is much more convincing to me than Coanda himself, and any Romanian source. Coanda never wrote about the aircraft's first "flight" or about it being a jet until four decades later—this fact is very damning to his claims. If you can find any writing from the 1910s, 1920s or 1930s that discusses its flight or any kind of fuel injection/combustion I will be very impressed. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but is not convincing for me, beeing less to be trusted then romanian sources. And anyway Harry Stine is much more qualified then him, and is neutral too. As well dont erase anymore that PDF article (or any article, link, books who is about the subject etc.), is about Coanda effect. Yes, i know its bother you because it said that Coanda build and flow the first jet plane in the world, but its Stine opinion, which i think everybody agree its quite qualified in this matter. Its easy for me too to erase links and articles and present just one side of view, even to re-write the entire page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.129.40 (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flight, 1955

[edit]

This article from Flight 24 June 1955 predates Coanda's claim to early jet invention. The article, "Without Visible Means of Support" by A. R. Weyl, mentions Coanda in passing as the inventor of a "ducted-fan-propelled aeroplane", though he credits G. Koch with inventing an earlier ducted airscrew in 1893. Weyl does not say anything about the Coanda-1910 being an early jet, because Coanda had not yet made such a claim. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flight, 1973

[edit]

In January 1973, Flight printed an obituary of "Dr Henri Coanda" in which he was credited with the invention of "a ducted fan aeroplane and the development of fluid dynamics." The obit called Coanda's 1910 design "unsuccessful" though it "set a precedent". Nowhere in the obituary is any sort of rudimentary jet engine design mentioned, though it goes into a bit of detail about other works such as desalinization. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary materials

[edit]

It can't be described as a source but it might be a jumping off point - searching through Flight, I found [a (1911) request for info on the turbo-propulseur. So far I have not found anything in the correspondence pages of following issues. Unfortunately the search is limited by the quality of the OCR (I found a "th" identified as a "m" in an unrelated dig) so a lack of match does not mean an absence of the text searched for. The request mentions its use with "Gregoire" motor sleighs which might be another avenue. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i searched too, but didnt find much, i find some page, but just couple lines of an article was presented, and the next page was missing unfortunately. I think the first aparition in Flight is the one with the pictures, where is said is a turbine-driven aircraft with no propeller, but the details are scarce next —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.129.40 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bureau of Reclamation

[edit]

I am removing a link to a paper by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation:

The paper is not written about aviation engineering, it is about the Coanda effect in hydraulics. The author cites Stine's 1989 work, and adds no new observations. Whatever this link was giving is already given by Stine, so this one has no value here. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

most of modern scientific community

[edit]

I have removed some sentences that claim widespread belief in Coanda's jet claims, a belief that gives no names of who was saying what. The sentences are not useful unless persons can be matched to their statements.

Here is the section, with removed text in italics:

"This view is held as well by most of modern scientific comunity. At the Seventeenth History Symposium of the International Academy of Astronautics, Budapest, Hungary, 1983, it was said that Coanda-1910 was the first reactive aircraft, and at the twenty-fourth Symposium of the International Academy of Astronautics, Dresden, Germany, 1990 it was again stated that Coanda-1910 was the first jet aircraft. Rolf Sonnemann and Klaus Krug from University of Technology of Dresden, who researched 10 years materials for their book "Technik und Technikwissenschaften in der Geschichte" stated as well that Coanda-1910 was the world's first jet, an opinion held as well by a series of american and romanian aviation historians."

The assertions that "most of modern" and "a series of american and romanian aviation historians" are not supported by cites. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heat shields

[edit]

I am removing sentences that give the Coanda-1910 passable heat shields which are supposed to withstand a jet exhaust:

"But acording to Coanda he added some metal plates at the exit area of exhausted gases precisely to deflect them. But the flames coming from the engine, for his surprise, instead to be deflected, curved over the plates toward him and close to the airplane body, making him to cut the gasoline and the aircraft crushed. After some years of trying to understand what happened, Coanda patented in 1934 in France what was named since then the "Coanda effect", discovered by him during this flight."

The assertion by Gibbs-Smith that the pilot would be killed by a jet exhaust takes all the Coanda features into account. Whatever heat shields the aircraft could claim would not have been enough to save the pilot from death if fuel were ignited in a combustion chamber. The only heat was from heat exchangers, pressurized air, and piston engine exhaust. The notional heat shields that would have saved the pilot are not visible at all in photographs. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cease fire until RfC is done

[edit]

Let's stop editing this article in relation to any of the Coandă-1910 material until after the RfC at Talk:Coandă-1910#RfC:_How_to_present_the_controversy_to_the_reader has run its course. We are sorting out how the contradictory claims in the matter will be presented. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see the article is now edit protected for two weeks. That will give us time to discover the best way forward. Binksternet (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

So, after getting called an idiot, I have now received threats over my recent edits. Any admins care to warn 79.116.208.237? Brutal Deluxe (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole IP range 79.116.xxx.xxx is the problem. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking notice of my plight, I'll keep a watch for that IP range. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • well, all crap said by Gibbs (who actualy i propose to be removed all) is unreliable, but i had, until now, the decency to let it there. Boyne is way more qualified then that delusional nut, and his correct quotes must be maintaned visible, wheter you liked or not. The same external links are viable and was in existence until you and your buddy romanianthruts start to mess up the article. So, to avoid unecessary wars all over wikipedia, just let aside your stupid bias and let the competent peoples to be saw here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.206.207 (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As well, external links are allowed, and are important for provide more detalied stuff about all Coanda inventions, from aircrafts and flying saucers to Coanda effect or water discoveries. To avoid unecessary "wars", those must remain there, as well the images who are not copyright regim. Btw, if that short movie from Discovery Science was posted onGoogle Movies or Youtube, doesnt that mean is for public use and can be posted here as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.197 (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the external links I removed:

I do not see the name in the first link, the one from New Fluid Technology in Australia.
If Sultan is using Gheorghiu as a source, why can't we? His article is a hagiography which does not touch in the slightest upon any controversy or dispute.
The www.usbr.gov link is completely useless, with no reason to have it in the External links section. It uses Stine as its only source on Coanda, so if we needed that reference, we would use Stine.
The Romanian link will be difficult for you to argue. English Wikipedia does not want foreign language "External links", so the argument will have to be very compelling. Right away I can see that it violates WP:ELPOV by giving only the 1950s–1960s version of Coanda's own story. It does not mention controversy or dispute.
None of the URLs are needed for External links. The idea that Gibbs-Smith will be removed and only Boyne and Stine used as sources is laughable. Binksternet (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jet sleigh and flying saucer

[edit]

I have added citation needed tags to both of these since they have no citations, and since I've personally read the patent usually described as his 1930's flying saucer and it definitely isn't a flying saucer. It's a design for a stationary propeller that uses the Bernoulli effect by blowing gas over a mushroom shaped construction. The aerodynamic train should have a citation tag too (patents for aerodynamic trains date back to the late 19th century, I'll find a reference later if it's necessary), but this page is already cluttered with citation tags because it's so full of uncited (and in my opinion inaccurate) claims.Romaniantruths (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • first, your opinion doesnt count too much. Second, why dont you post that patent of flying saucer to be added, if you find it, to all peoples see it and make their own impression?
  • there is some images with the patents, and interviews who mention the "aerodina lenticulara". I dont have much time now, but i will add them later on the article
  • http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7884468677144545541&hl=ro#

The images and pics with patents reproduced are from Museum of Technology "Dimitrie Leonida" from Bucharest. Coanda family donated all his archive to Air Museum, Military Museum and this museum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.206.171 (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of these images dates to the era in question. and in that one only part of the image does and that part is the patent I mentioned above. I know that patent exists, and what it is, since I've read it. I have no reason to believe any of the other images have any provenance whatsoever. They are therefore useless. Romaniantruths (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The images and pics with patents reproduced are from Museum of Technology "Dimitrie Leonida" from Bucharest, and from french and american archives. You instead didnt provided that link with the patent, nor you have the competence to understand it well
  • oh, and external links are ofcourse allowed, before some stupid bias of some shown around there was no problem with them. To fight like that, erasing those links, its show that you dont have anything to say and you are incompetent. I can do that too, erasing stuffs all over wikipedia, even if is childish, but for now i dont come as down as this actions, even if might be funny maybe to play around like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.129.92 (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those JPG images are not suitable as references, which is why they have been repeatedly removed. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your threat to start "erasing stuffs all over Wikipedia" doesn't really impress me, but I think it probably violates the Wikipedia guidelines. I'm not sure about this, so if you do start erasing stuff all over Wikipedia please let me know if you're told that it's agaist the rules to do so. Romaniantruths (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Romaniantruths, you know you shouldn't feed the troll. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • i am not threat anything, just that some articles related with Coanda, early aviation, jets, Gibbs, etc. need to be corrected, so the justice and correctnes prevail, and wikipedia rise again at the normal standard, from the hole where darkness of some ediotrs bias trow it. Ein wikipedia, ein standard, ein truth, dont you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.125 (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JPGs as references

[edit]

Once again I have removed the image URLs which keep returning, supposedly as references to support Aerodina Lenticulara:

  1. http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/4/aerodina-1932.jpg
  2. http://www.agentia.org/img_editor/userfiles/image/Coanda/coanda%20foto%202.jpg
  3. http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/3/aerodina-1956.jpg
  4. http://www.agentia.org/img_editor/userfiles/image/Coanda/farfuria%20planuri%20coanda%20foto%204.jpg
  5. http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/5/aerodina-1961-1965.jpg
  6. http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/7/aerodina.jpg

These images are unsuitable as references. They are created or assembled by people other than Coanda, and have no verifiability. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to add links, please take time to format them properly. this section of Wikipedia explains how to format a hyperlink. If you want to present them as references/citations this is the section to read.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • i arranged them in a more compact style now. The "jpgs" are from Museum of Technology "Dimitire Leonida" where part of Coanda archive is keept, and there is an article posted as well on external links. Both external links and this images are here to stay because are showing important realisations of Coanda, and ofcourse are allowed, despite the weird bias of some beings

others say it merely crashed

[edit]

I removed the sentence "Others say it merely crashed" from the end of Walter Boyne's quoted sentences about the Coanda-1910. Boyne is demonstrably wrong about what "others say"—Winter and Gibbs-Smith say it did not fly at all, let alone crashed. I see no reason why this phrase of Boyne's should be included in his quote, if it is so wrong. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boyne may be referring to others - disloyal fans?, opponents?, bystanders? - rather than Gibbs-Smith and Winter. Including it removes issues about selective quoting. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody falls into the category of people who think the Coanda-1910 flew but did not crash. Boyne sets up a straw man argument with his final sentence—everybody who says it flew also says it crashed. There are no "others" to which Boyne might be referring. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well, probably Boyne didnt even took in consideration Gibbs as a qualified opinion worth to be mentioned on this matter, which i agree. Gibbs himself, in the paragraphs quoted in the article, make some assumptions and supositions backed by nothing, just merely his own believes. And, above all, he is not qualified to talk about engines, is biased, and my opinion is that he need to be removed totaly from our dscussion, and just Stine and Boyne to be mentioned as most important sources, clearly the most qualified. Or, if Gibbs or Winter to be mentioned, they have a separate paragraph, called "Controversies" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.197 (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of conjecture is that, to guess what Boyne was thinking about Gibbs-Smith? This conjecture is completely outside of the question about having the full Boyne quote, including the straw man argument with a null set of people who think Coanda flew but did not crash. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is flying and crashing (shortly after take off I veer to the left, clip a building and crash) and there is just crashing without flying (powering down the field, I veer off and run into the front of the building). The latter could be "merely crashed". GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it could mean taxiing then crashing, but there are none who make this claim about the Coanda-1910. Binksternet (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Child's toy made of paper"

[edit]

I removed this quote:

These airplanes we have today are no more than a perfection of a child's toy made of paper. In my opinion, we should search for a completely different flying machine, based on other flying principles. I imagine a future aircraft, which will take off vertically, fly as usual, and land vertically. This flying machine should have no moving parts. This idea came from the huge power of cyclones.

I took it out because it was not found anywhere in a thorough book search, or in scholarly papers. The only places I found it were unreliable webpages about famous quotes. If we can give proper attribution to this quote (when and where) then we can return it to the article. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is from a discurs held at Romanian Academy, i have see somewhere a link, but is in romanian, need to search for it, dont have much time now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.125 (talk) 08:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed lead

[edit]

The references in the lead (2,3,4,5,and6) all show the 1910 Coanda was described at the time as what would be today called a ducted fan, not that it was just an experimental aircraft. I have changed the lead to reflect this.Romaniantruths (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • well, there must be presented just the only contemporary source, Flight magazine from 1910,[17] who called it a "turbine driven engine with no propeller". Later sources from following years who doesnt saw the plane, or patent of an engine we dont know if is similar 100% with one of Coanda-1910 are not quite correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.87 (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • another change that must be done is regarding Gibbs, who in his last statement (in 1970) [18] said this <<Another unsuccessful, but prophetic, machine was the Coanda biplane ... Although inevitably earth-bound, this aircraft stands as the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane.>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.87 (talk) 09:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You just happened to leave out the part in the middle where he explicitly describes the propulseur as a ducted fan. And where he uses the word 'jet' in 'scare quotes', showing that he doesn't personally consider it a jet. I'm sure that this was just an inadvertent error on your part. Romaniantruths (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • you just happened to avoid the last phrase, "this aircraft stands as the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane", where he didnt use 'scare quotes' for the <jet>. If you have a little logic, this mean that he agree that the "prophetic" airplane was the first proof, first test, first attempt, first experiment.etc, of a jet-propelled aircraft. And this fits very well in what Stine said (an experimental jet) and Boyne said (a primitive jet). I think you or have everything mixed in your mind and you are unable to discerne betwen "turbojet" mostly used today and any other types of jets, and you believe that just the "turbojet" is a "jet", or your huge bias simply blind you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.158 (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gibbs-Smith could be using the word prophet in the sense of a "revelation of events to come" - that someday aircraft would fly without propellers.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "primitive jet" or "experimental jet", the line drawn in the sand is this: did it fly? We have Coanda and people who believe him saying he flew, and we have Gibbs-Smith and Winter who say he did not fly at Issy-les-Moulineaux, not even a short hop and crash. We also have scores of standard jet engine and aviation books that say the first jet aircraft came along in the late 1930s. It is crucial to these book authors that the engine be capable of powering the aircraft in flight; otherwise, the machine is simply a test bed. The Coandă-1910 was not tested or flown in 1910, according to contemporary sources. The only sources which say the machine was tested and flew are Coanda and the historians who take Coanda's word at face value, without investigating the 1910s.
The engine was a primitive jet and an experimental jet, yes, but it blew plain air mixed with piston engine exhaust, and its design did not make the leap of intellect into combustion of fuel in the air stream, according to Winter and Gibbs-Smith. As much as the engine can be said to be an experimental jet, the aircraft cannot, as it was never powered into flight by the engine, according to Gibbs-Smith and Winter. They even deny that it was ever tested or taxied under its own power at Issy. So we have an engine that blows out a jet of nearly pure air, but does not and cannot power an aircraft in flight. This makes it something very interesting, a forgotten design which did not influence history, but it does not make the Coandă-1910 the first jet aircraft. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JPG images as links in article

[edit]

At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 79, there was a discussion about the JPG URLs that some editors keep trying to put into the article. They are not appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Boyne

[edit]

I have tried to remove Boyne's sentence "Others say it merely crashed" because it does not express a major viewpoint—it is a throwaway sentence in a magazine article written by Boyne.

At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_78, Boyne is discussed. One IP editor says that Boyne is one of the most reliable sources, and that he calls the Coanda-1910 a primitive jet. The IP editor says (incorrectly) that Boyne affirms this in all of his books where he covers the subject. My response was the following:

Sure, Boyne is a good source. The problem I have with your link is that everybody who thinks the Coanda-1910 flew also thinks it crashed and burned. Boyne is the only person in the world who seems to separate those who think it flew from those who think it crashed, in this pair of sentences appearing in an Air Force Magazine article: "Countless loyal Coanda fans insist that the airplane flew. Others say it merely crashed." This pair of sentences does not present its null set conclusion in any other Boyne work, especially in his books which would be under greater editorial oversight than a magazine article. Me, I think the sentences do not work together, and that Boyne would have fixed the problem had it been brought to his attention. I know if I were his editor, I would have pushed back against these two magazine sentences, making him rewrite them to make sense.
Boyne in his books mostly writes about air power and military air history, so naturally the non-military Coanda-1910 gets very little 'ink':
As you can see, Boyne does not have a lot to offer about Henri Coanda in his books, mentioning the engine only once, as an influence on the Caproni Campini, calling the engine a "ducted fan compressor". Books of the sort listed above are higher level references than a magazine article. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(It has been pointed out to me that Boyne's seemingly null set sentences might divide people into these two groups: those who think he flew and crashed, and those who think he taxied and crashed. There are, of course, those such as Gibbs-Smith and Winter who think he did not ever test the vehicle at all; a group Boyne does not mention in his magazine article.) Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Boyne is a fine source in general aviation, especially military aviation, but he does not talk in detail about Coanda in his books, and the disputed sentence is one from his only magazine article which tells a small amount of detail about Coanda. He calls the engine a "primitive jet" in the magazine but a "ducted fan compressor" in the book, a stronger reference. Boyne is not the magic source by which the Coanda-1910 will be saved. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Boyne's mention of Coanda in The Leading Edge.

Inventions activities and discoveries

[edit]

There are a few problems with this section: Activities? would this include things like camping and shuffleboard? It makes the section look a little weird, and it's makes the section a depot for things which belong in the body of the text. In fact several of the entries are just re-iterations of things already discussed in the main body of the article(Like various Bristol aircraft he designed). Also, the solar de-salinisation system: Is he supposed to have invented it? Or designed one? Romaniantruths (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dissapearing references

[edit]

Why were all the contemporary references erased from the lead, and the article? They all describe what Coanda said about his aircraft at the airshow(that it was a ducted fan). Romaniantruths (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war about Coandă-1910 emphasis

[edit]

For two months now I have been steadily reverting the same general content added by IP editors, the latest one being 193.xxx after the 79.xxx series was blocked, because the IP edits are taking this article in the wrong direction.

The IP edits are of the nature of arguing the Coandă-1910 story here on this page rather than on that article's page. Too much detail about the Coandă-1910 keeps being introduced to this article, but Coandă was much more of an engineer than that one aircraft. He invented a wide array of devices, and experienced great success in other matters. This biography article is not the place to put too much emphasis, per WP:WEIGHT, on one small aspect of the man's life.

Specifically, I have been removing assertions that the Coandă-1910 was "the first aircraft constructed for air-reactive propulsion", because at least one expert source (Winter) questions this fact, I have removed "turbine powered" because the modern definition of turbine does not include what the 'turbo-propulseur' could do, and I have removed a group of patent documents that are too much detail for this bio. Gibbs-Smith was quoted as saying "the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane" but the context was not explained, the quote was too much detail for a bio, and Winter gives a different possibility (that Canovetti might have been first). I have removed a whole paragraph about aircraft details—wa-a-ay too much granularity for this bio. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet, I've been following this for a while now, and I don't think you need to discuss your reverts anymore, as you're doing the right thing. I suspect that whoever is behind these poor edits is trying to prove a point or somehow "win" the argument. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I greatly appreciate your support of my actions, but if you delve into my edit history you will see at least one block which hit me suddenly after I took similar actions against an IP editor. That time, I was keeping cited information in an article that an IP editor very much wanted to have out. I wish to avoid that sort of ugliness again. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Binskernet, your actions are clearly in contradiction with what you say, and you are edit warring again. All the info related with all inventions and discoveries of Coanda must be presented. Fact that you are biased against him and continously try to diminish them or edit them will bring just and edit war, and you will be finally blocked, since your actions are clearly very biased. As there ones of the Romaniantruths who draged you in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.164.138 (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • i saw you disagree even with your own source, Gibbs-Smith, and delete his statements from 1970 and try to put the ones from 1960, even if clearly say other thing and changed his mind later. As well you say you want to show all Coanda inventions and discoveries, yet you try to minimalize all, as much as possible, and delete and contest everything, complaining in the same time to everyone you think might listen to you, and hidding behind the "veteran editor" badge, believieng that in that way you can manipulate everyone in your own POV. It is pathetic, and is sad if wikipedia (considered by most of the peoples an unreliable source-gee, wonder why, or not, after see your activity) allow such editors to do what they want —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.129.28 (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have added very poor references to the article, and they have been removed. No doubt this article can be improved with more information about Coanda's broad reach of inventions, but adding JPG composite images created by museums is not the answer. I am not biased against Coanda, I think he was a brilliant inventor who was flighty and unfocused at times, and exaggerated or lied about his exploits later. That is not bias, it is an opinion based on evidence. It's funny you, an anonymous editor, would accuse me of hiding behind my Wikipedia accomplishments. Come out of hiding yourself, and create a user name! I hide behind nothing. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This addition

The problems are:

  1. A verbatim 1967 quote by Coanda, sourced from here here
  2. http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7281839/4/radar-cover.jpg
  3. http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7281839/5/radar-articol.jpg

re the quote. What's the copyright problem with it? It's not Allstar's copyright to claim, whatever they stick in the page footer. It is Coanda's copyright, but short quotes are under fair use (this is how Allstar are already using it).

re the desalination images, I'd see the first (the plant image) as acceptable, but not the second. This is because the second adds nothing to the first image, other than some non-English text. Anything we could gain from the second is better done by adding text ourselves.

Binksternet, don't throw them such an easy bone. Anon IP, I just hope you're not Lsorin socking away... Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • no, maybe for your shock there is more then one Romanian interested in Coanda topic. However, for my surprise, i see some common sense at you, regarding that quote. Biskerent is simply blinded and run from a page to other trying to impose his agenda, and aparently losted the conection with reality.
  • about images now, i think both are fine, since the second have a closer look to one of those devices, as well give more info about the entire instalation. Yes, is in french, but since there is not a english language source, and a translation can be done by a reader, it is fine to be posted too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.192.193 (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Andy, no bone. This IP addressee is not Lsorin. The 79.11x IP guy lives in Braşov, Romania, while Lsorin lives in Finland. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lsorin socks from Brasov IPs on a regular basis. Binksternet, you've personally warned his socks for edit-warring repeatedly. The proof is on Brutaldeluxe's talk-page(22: jet engine), where Lsorin, in the middle of a highly abusive exchange forgot to log in as Lsorin and made two comments (on the 28th and 29th) as two of his Brasov socks. These socks were both warned by you for edit-warring.Ion G Nemes (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not terribly convincing evidence that it's him IP-socking, rather than another editor with the same viewpoint and lack of civility. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lsorin and the Brasov IPs do not use the same English spelling and grammar mistakes. Each has a signature of mistakes, and the two are not the same. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lsorin asked brutaldeluxe for something, Brutaldeluxe declined, and the reply,"Sorry I ask you..." came from a Brasov IP. Andy Dingly(I made sport of your name once but regret that and won't do it again, tho' my Teapot comment stil stands), are you suggesting that the Brasov IP in question was pretending to be Lsorin? And that he just happened to find this exchange and decide to continue it as if he were someone else? Give me a break. However as for Binksternet's assertion that "Each has a signature of mistakes, and the two are not the same." Well maybe that is proof; after all, no mere human being could ever voluntarily vary his spelling and grammar, as these things are invariable human traits beyond our control. I guess mebbe I have no prouve and my post sucks many times, sorry I ask you 'gods' of Wikipedia about this. :(Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this talk page entry, IP 79.116 says "are you idiot? Stop erasing the correct quotes of that Boyne article, and other links and documents" in reply to Brutaldeluxe's (absolutely appropriate) deletions here and then again here. This is not Lsorin. Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He says,"Sorry I ask you..."(at least according to the link you provided) ,and if you read the history of this talk page you'll find that there's an editor on here called Binksternet who doesn't approve of re-posting abusive statements while discussing them. He's even been known to delete them himself, just ask Redfoot(remember? the guy who says "shut the fuck up" a lot). Ion G Nemes (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me to be a second guy jumping on the conversation, taking up where Lsorin left off, the second guy angry about deletions of museum-designed JPGs used as references, etc. Binksternet (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • my opinion is that nemes is in fact the former romanianlies/thruts/whatever and another name he used at some point. Anyway, the same person who start the mess of this never ending edit war (as Coanda-1910 seem to nt be end anyway, dont know why was added that GA?), started because of his personal bias, and who dragged others in this. The sources are fine and good, and despite his repeteadly deletes it seem that the same admin who jumped quickly to intervene in other cases close their eyes now. This i saw happening just here, on english wikipedia, and is probably the main reasons why wikipedia itself is forced to admit is an unreliable source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.220.18 (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source

[edit]

I added a tag to the top of the article stating that it contains sources that may be unreliable. Specifically, I am questioning this one:

It appears to have been written by George Olteanu on 3 September 2010 for Go4It, a Romanian gadget and technology website that reminds me of gdgt.com. Who is Olteanu? We have no indication of his level of expertise. The post looks more like a hosted blog than anything else; it was posted in the Technology Curiosities section (Curiozitati). Olteanu appears to have written several posts about Coanda: [19], [20], [21], [22], and [23]. Olteanu looks to me like an amateur fan of Coanda.

These articles are fun to read but not high on the reliable/verifiable scale. There are better sources we can use to describe the man's accomplishments, I am sure. Binksternet (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all the articles are based on materials from Museum of Technic Dimitire Leonida from Bucharest, where most of Coanda archives are located. About "aerodina lenticulara/flying saucer" is based as well on what this guy say

  • http://www.tare.ro/go4it.ro/463763-aerodina-lenticulara
  • He is a mechanical engineer who work at that museum, and he explain (unfortunately just in Romanian) few things about Coanda "flying saucer". The photos are snipets made from the same archives, documents and pattents, posted for public in that museum. I think are quite good to make an idea about the "aerodina lenticulara", and i think that PDF document can be as well posted, on "external links" category, since it have some interesting photos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.205.185 (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the go4it bits by Olteanu do not look so bad. None of them are used to support a controversial claim. I am removing the tag I placed. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So suddenly a blog is an admissible source? And This is not only a controvertial claim, but a provably false one. The illustration on this blog shows a 1932 patent which is not for a flying saucer. It's a patent for another replacement for a propeller. No one could read this patent without realizing this, so it's pretty obvious that Olteanu is either intentionally posting false claims, or didn't care enough about this subject matter to check the patent(not very likely, obviously if he really thought this patent might say what he chose to claim it says he would have posted the whole thing)The other drawings all date to the 50's. Which, interestingly enough, is when that 'brilliant rocket scientist, and Coanda scholar' Stine says the Aerodina lenticulara was invented! Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The Facts" PDF

[edit]

I removed the PDF external link call "Henri Coanda: The Facts", hosted by newfluidtechnology.com.

This PDF has no author, and is unverifiable. No level of author expertise can be assessed. This link fails WP:V and WP:RS, and violates WP:ELPOV as it gives too much credence to Coanda's version of events.

According to WP:ELNO, we should be following this guideline: Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting. The PDF gives misleading statements about Coanda, specifically, it says the following:

  1. Coanda invented the "first jet engine powered plane". Expert sources disagree about this. See Coanda-1910.
  2. "Gasoline was then added to the fan exhaust and then ignited." Contradicted by experts such as Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith who said there was no injection and of course no ignition.

The PDF has some interesting photos but its text is misleading in places. In the PDF, the photos are said to be given by G. Harry Stine but this is not proven and there could be a copyright violation. The bigger problem is the presence of misleading statements. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • there is no misleading there, Gibbs is contradicted by countless other bigger experts who said Coanda inventend the jet engine, and even he changed his mind from 1960 to 1970. If you disagree with what is said there i disagree with delusional Gibbs either and he need to be removed as well (at least we need to put there his statement from 1970, not from 1960). About copyright violation, there isnt posted any photos here, just a link to that document, similar to what "google" do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.206.187 (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gibbs-Smith is the largest commentator on the subject of early aviation; the most notable and the most highly regarded. In his 1960 and 1970 books he says nearly the same thing about Coanda, in some cases the exact same thing. There was no change in the opinion of Gibbs-Smith from 1960 to 1970. ::Regarding copyrighted images, who owns the photos? The document says that G. Harry Stine gave them all to Terry Day. Who is that? Was Terry Day involved in making the PDF? Did he give his permission? Did American author and model rocket engineer G. Harry Stine really give all these photos to someone in Australia? We have no proof. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • your opinion about Gibbs is not shared by many peoples, he is not an expert in engines and aircrafts technologies as he had no engineering qualifications, not to mention he was a delusional person who believed in ghosts. In 1970 he said that Coanda-1910 was the first full atempt of jet aircraft, and this is the statement needed to be put in the article. There are other more qualified aviation historians or scientists to talk about the subject. About that PDF link, its said similar stuff as ones presented in the main article, and contain very interesting photos with Coanda and his inventions. Is not any copyright violation, as we dont post the photos here, just the link, link who can be found by any "google search" as well and is free on the net. I suspect that is only you (and some wiki friend) who invent such reasons, because you have some bias toward Coanda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.212.46 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith was the acknowledged lion of early aviation history from the 1940s until his death. His obituary in the Times described him as "the recognised authority on the early development of flying in Europe and America and in 1962 the Royal Aeronautical Society recognised his work with the award of an Honorary Companionship. ... His international reputation then led the Smithsonian Institution to appoint him as the first Lindbergh Professor of Aerospace History at the National Air & Space Museum in Washington in 1978."[24] He was a Research Fellow at the Science Museum in London, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, and a Fellow of the Museums Association.[25] Richard P. Hallion called him "The greatest of all historians of early aviation" and "the greatest of historians tracing the early history of flight". That is extremely high praise from the highest places. Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After nearly a year of this, I can't believe the effort you guys have been putting into arguing with the same persistent contributor. If all the work you had put against this geezer had gone into the article, we'd have an amazing article by now! Stop arguing and improve the article! Mayor of Yurp (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A more likely view is that if the people you complain of hadn't put that effort into arguing with a couple of contributors, then the article would now be a swamp. It would be as short as previously, as badly written, it would claim that Romania invented Concorde and would use copyright violation media to support this. Andy Dingley (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Touché! I'm not arguing with that. Sausage down an alley (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith was the acknowledged lion of early aviation history from the 1940s until his death". Hahahaha, this is the most funniest stuff i read lately, you make my day hahaha. You should add him on a Zoo article too then. Anyway, as you can see he is present in the article, just we need to put his words from 1970, not the ones from 1960. On more serious stuff now, we can put that PDF link on "External links" as its not any copyright issues with it since he can be easily found free on internet with "google search", we dont post directly any photos here, just a link and peoples can see many very interesting and unique photos there about Coanda and several of his inventions, and is in line with what is write in the main article (as Stine and others)
      • No, no, no. The PDF is misleading, giving absolute statements that are known to be seriously challenged. It has no author listed so we do not know if the images are properly used. The text is not in line with the mainstream view that Coanda did not invent the first jet aircraft. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • PDF said exactly what is said in the main article, what Stine, those German scholars, Boyne and countless others said, if you refer to the jet engine. This is actualy the mainstream view, at least outside of your alternative world of you and your couple friends from english wikipedia. Not wonder why is considered unreliable. However, the PDF is interesting for many other things then mention of jet aircraft. It have several very interesting photos of many other invention who are mentioned there, and it doesnt have any copyright issues. Especialy since we post here just a link, not the photos from it, and the link is free and available at any internet or google search anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.242 (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article protection

[edit]

I have semi-protected the article for the time being due to constant edit warring, please gain a consensus for inclusion or otherwise on this talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • for an admin i would expected to see by himself if that problem with PDF document is real or is just a biased point of view of couple editors who have a problem with Coanda. This just make to reinforce the general view of the unreliability of wikipedia, where personal opinions of couple older editors value more then real sources. Even if on all other language articles there is not such problems, i see here in english wikipedia this problem is very present
  • this is the document http://www.newfluidtechnology.com.au/Henri_Coanda_The_facts.pdf
  • is in accord with the main article, and have very interesting photos with Coanda and his inventions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.215.74 (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My role in protecting the article is stop any damage to the encyclopedia from edit warring, it is not my place to resolve, investigate or take sides in the dispute. Suggest if a consensus cant be agreed then other avenues like the WP:RSN page or dispute resolution like WP:RFC. MilborneOne (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • funny thing is that you already make a damage, protecting the variant of those 2 guys who was edit warring. I dont care too much about wikipedia, acknowledged as unrealiable encyclopedia even by wikipedia itself, and i understand that "native english speakers" and "older editors" make the rules here, despite any other sources, you just made this bias even more evident —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.194.196 (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no bias I am afraid just Wikipedia:WRONGVERSION MilborneOne (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, wrongversion, afected by some silly anglophilic reason, you are right even if you dont realize. Just you did it all wrong on this article. Not a surprise anyway, as i said some mods/admins/older editors and "native english speakers" make their own rules here. The PDF article doesnt said anything that is not already said in the main article (where even the "british aviation lion", hihihi, but crazy believer in ghosts, Gibbs, is mentioned), the jet aircraft part is supported by peopleas as Stine, a rocket scientist, Boyne, former jet fighter pilot and director of NASM of USA, those German scholars (with engineering studies), as well others (French and Romanians, all more qualified that a "keeper of Public Relations" as Gibbs). But i posted that PDF not for this jet aircraft part, but for the photos, which are kinda unique, or very hard to find online (i saw few on an old almanach here), and is not just about the jet aircraft (this being the reason why anglophiles are afraid, they being suporters of Whittle, gosh, what a surprise) but about many other inventions, as well with photos.
    • the link is available anyway on the net, and i strongly suggest any reader here to not put much trust in such wkipedia articles (wikipedia is considered as unreliable encyclopedia by wikipedia itself, and the reasons are more then obviously if we look at what is done here with this article) take them just for some general datas and look for more reliable sources on the net. The bias on some english wikipedia articles is so big and strictly oriented that is comical how they fight to keep them acording with their views (as can be see here with this "threatening" PDF document). Interesting that in other languages articles things are more smooth and correct, without this anglophilic "drama queens" "native english speakers" older editors and admins.
There are many aspects to the inclusion of this external link: on one hand we have the policy question of discussing contentious links before simply re-adding them by edit warring. Secondly there is the policy of what a "good EL" is, and whether this PDF ought to be linked at all.
The first is simple: mess with the policy for how to behave and you will find your edits reverted and seen as vandalism to the code of behaviour (even if not vandalism of content) and you'll wind up blocked. I'm serious - how to edit is as important as the content you add. WP has a low tolerance for disruptive editors, even disruptive experts.
Secondly, there are problems with this link. Does it meet WP:EL? Does it breach any of WP:ELNO? There could be reasons why we just shouldn't link to it.
WP's EL policy is clear, although rarely understood. A perfect article would have no ELs. We only use ELs when they add something that we can't add by other means. Clear policy is that it's better to add content to an article than it is to link to it. Linkfarms should not be our goal.
This article has problems as an EL.
  • Copyright. Are the images this PDF is using both available for that site to use without copy vio, and also not available to us to use similarly? For instance, images that are in the Flight archive could simply be added to our own pages. (There's also a chance that we might accept an image-rich EL when using all of those images would be too many for one article). If these images don't have clear copyright status for their use though, we shouldn't like to a site that's a copyvio.
  • Accuracy. An early statement in that PDF is that the 1910 engine injected and burned fuel in its duct. This is an important claim and it's disproved by the balance of other references (many arguments passim). There are also descriptions of later aircraft with blown flaps and a claim that these use the Coanda effect - which is also a highly dubious claim: not every blown flap uses Coanda. So we see very soon that this document isn't of a standard that we'd accept ourselves.
  • Editorial process and verifiability. We have high standards for these ourselves and few other external sites meet them. Is this a serious enough issue to fail WP:EL?
My personal opinion is somewhere in the middle. It's a valuable document with some interesting images. That still isn't enough to reach WP:EL though - are the images valuable enough to outweigh other the concerns over accuracy? Can we write a reference to this EL that gives enough warning that statement like fuel-burning shouldn't be believed literally? Finally, is the copyright status acceptable to us?
These issues need to be discussed and a general answer agreed. Then, and only then, might it be acceptable to add the EL. As it is, this type of single-sided addition itself is unacceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've only now realised that the authors of the PDF are a company manufacturing swimming pool and spa water pumps. This disqualifies from being experts on the Coanda engine, but qualifies them as experts on the Coanda effect. I think. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing that PDF doesn't demonstrate is any expertise, whether on pumps or on aircraft. It's a photo gallery, and almost nothing more than that. It doesn't even try to explain the Coanda effect, either rightly or wrongly.
I'm undecided as to whether it should be added or not, but this would be because they're useful images of rare 1910s aircraft. It would be despite the captions (and the fuel injection claim), but the text is minimal enough that we can advise not to trust it. My indecision is because I'm unsure of the copyright aspect, not the value as content. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would feel so much better about the PDF if it did not purport to tell the reader The Truth About Coanda, and if its author signed the work. I imagine that the author may be Terry Day of New Fluid Technology in Australia, except that he is referred to in the third person. Day is a fluidics engineer, not an aviation historian. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:IICCR G240 Ceausescu Coanda crop.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:IICCR G240 Ceausescu Coanda crop.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Activities in France

[edit]

/!\ Protection issue /!\

Current version of the text is:

Upon his return in 1909, he travelled to Paris, where he enrolled in the newly founded École Nationale Superieure d'Ingenieurs en Construction Aéronautique (now the École Nationale Supérieure de l'Aéronautique et de l'Espace, also known as SUPAERO). One year later (1910) he graduated at the head of the first class of aeronautical engineers.

However, there is a confusion between two french aerospace schools, École Nationale Superieure d'Ingenieurs en Construction Aéronautique (known as ENSICA) and École Nationale Superieure d'Aeronautique et de Construction Mecaniques (known as ENSA and then ENSAE, or SUPAERO). M. Coanda was a student at École Nationale Superieure d'Aeronautique et de Construction Mecaniques (founded in 1909 and that changed its name for École Nationale Supérieure de l'Aéronautique et de l'Espace) and not at École Nationale Superieure d'Ingenieurs en Construction Aéronautique (founded much later, in 1946).

The text should be modified as follow:

Upon his return in 1909, he travelled to Paris, where he enrolled in the newly founded École Nationale Superieure d'Aeronautique et de Construction Mecaniques (now the École Nationale Supérieure de l'Aéronautique et de l'Espace, also known as SUPAERO). One year later (1910) he graduated at the head of the first class of aeronautical engineers.

Thank you for editing as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.54.120.175 (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry joke of a flying saucer claim

[edit]

This highly controversial, unacceptably sourced garbage is still up there. WHY? Bunksternit, you put this up there and ignored objections to it while keeping the page protected to maintain these spurious claims. I want an explanation.Ion G Nemes (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding the flying saucer to the article body with a cite to the patent. Does that fix the problem? Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an actual flying saucer patent, and not the patent shown on the site you reference, which is most definitely not for a flying saucer, or any craft whatsoever, but only for another propeller improvement(reading the patent will make this clear). By the way, did you notice how the source you referenced shows the patent diagram sideways to hide the fact that it's a design for a lateral propulsion system? Doesn't this sort of obvious intentional mis-representation of facts call the entire veracity of the source into question? You have argued that repeatedly on this talk-page in reference to other blogs(Like Henri Coanda; the facts, remember that one?)Ion G Nemes (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having now checked your reference, I see that it is a blank page. But the title "propeling device" still makes it clear that this is not a flying saucer patent. So no, I don't think anyone would say that fixes the problem. And there is the further complication that this pathetic WWII flying saucer lie is so ridiculous that it is unlikely any reputable author has bothered to refute it. Coanda DID make a lot of noise about his flying saucer AFTER WWII, with fantastic claims that he increased every time he could find someone to listen to them (just like his jet engine). But he told Stine that he invented it after the war, and we can't very well go against the "brilliant scientist and inventor of the model rocket" can we? TheCoanda WWII flying saucer story is popular primarily on cites that specialize in nazi flying saucer stories(just google "xerium" and you'll be there).Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coandă effect

[edit]

This article claims Henri Coanda discovered the Coanda effect, which is contradictory with Coandă effect, where Coanda's contribution was just in recognizing its practical applications. mudava (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silly phrasing

[edit]

"... a controversial claim disputed by some and supported by others." Surely a controversial claim is by definition "disputed by some and supported by others." Zgryphon (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you, even?

[edit]

User:Andy Dingley Who do you think you are? You, who has not even 0.01% of Coandă's knowledge and learning, you, who contributed with nothing to the world, YOU, dare make HIM, a LIAR?! You scum, you don't even deserve to kiss his toe, yet you think you can decide for him! No wonder the world has gotten this low, no wonder the Wiki is so criticized, as long as likes like you, who have no notion of respect or recognition, are running things!... Romanian-and-proud (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "1910 jet aircraft" claim is an old one round here. There is very little to support it, although this does rely on subtle technical distinctions as to just what he built, and just what a "jet engine" means. Please don't re-open this without at least reading the long past discussions of this on the article talk pages and elsewhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Very little to support it"...how about your eyes? You're not blind, right? Everyone who looks at that for the first time says "wow, a jet", I think you're the only one in the world who doesn't... -_- Romanian-and-proud (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley is quite correct in what he says. However, your behaviour towards him in the discussion is far below the level of politeness acceptable in Wikipedia and amounts to personal attacks. Emeraude (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded.TheLongTone (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't react much better if you'd be in my place...Seeing your country tarnished, it's history and contributions disconsidered, the achievements of it's people denied and contested 24/7...it's a very unpleasant feeling...You're probably American, so you can't possibly understand how I feel, but simply put: I just want justice... Romanian-and-proud (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you really mean is that your cherished propaganda is being called to task, and on wikipedia, who you are is utterly irrelevant. Completely. Your feelings in the matter are also irrelevant - Wikipedia isn't about to change articles because of people's hurt feelings. Wikipedia has many articles about things people FEEL very strongly against, such as global warming, GMOs, vaccinations, etc, etc but that doesn't stop articles based on the most reliable available published references from being included, and unreliable information being kept in the margins where it belongs - and the same for this page. Simply put, what he built was not a jet engine, and it neither had fuel injected into the airstream, lacked a combustion chamber capable of handling the resulting fuel burning, and lacked any means of turning whatever burned into thrust, all while leaving the fuselage sides (which were highly flammable) unprotected. Coanda's drawings were found to have been altered after the fact in an attempt to make a claim but this occurred long after real jet engines were in existence. What he built was a Ducted fan - still a very important invention, but not a jet engine - and it was powered by a conventional engine that backfired, setting the aircraft on fire, which indicates he had no expectation of anything coming out the exhaust, which he would have if he had been designing a jet engine.NiD.29 (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It WAS a jet engine, but it was the very first one, ofcourse it didn't have what you find today in a jet engine, because it was made over 100 years ago! Even if you don't want to call it a jet engine, you still have to admit that this was the first real step in the development of jet engines. Expecting it, in 1910, to have what others had over 30 years later is just absurd and biased. There's this thing, it's called evolution. We humans evolved from monkeys. That doesn't make monkeys humans, but they are still the starting point. Just like with Coandă here, he made the "monkey" of the jet flight. Romanian-and-proud (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong there as well. You might think you evolved from a monkey, but humans didn't. I suggest you read Human evolution before calling on it to support your case. Emeraude (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey is just a figure of speech, anyway that was not even the focus, did you even get what I meant to say or not? I had enough of arguing over obvious things with redundant people like you. -_- 18:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Romanian-and-proud (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't use figures of speech when attempting to make a serious point. Of course I got what you meant to say - we all have, and you're still wrong. And you're not behaving to other editors in an aceptable way. Emeraude (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How am I wrong? How? I only say what Coanda said about his OWN invention! Who do you think you are to tell a man what he invented? It's his invention, so he has the sole right to name it! Romanian-and-proud (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So much butthurt - You have far too much invested to offer additions with any chance of neutrality, which is central to making wikipedia edits. I suggest you step back and think about it for a while before returning to make changes to english wikipedia that match Romania's blatantly false propaganda which made extensive claims to appropriate a whole host of inventions, which was so systematic it had its own name - Protochronism, which basically undermines the legitimacy of ANY Romanian claim for anything.
The jet engine did not evolve from Coanda's efforts, and the only connection is with the turbofan, which uses a ducted fan ahead of a jet engine to augment the thrust. Coanda made changes to his own drawings to make claims that have never had any other supporting evidence, beyond an accidental backfire from the engine that blew through the fan before immolating the aircraft. He then immediately abandoned the idea and never took it up again, without understanding any of the possibilities, and never built anything resembling a jet engine. This is a pretty clear indicator that it was not a jet engine, otherwise he would have come back to the idea at some later point in his career. Had it actually been a jet engine, he would have tested it on a test stand, not on the aircraft, and every indication is that he was surprised when the flames ignited the aircraft - had it actually been a jet engine, he would not have been surprised as jet engines produce a jet of flame out their exhaust - which any half baked designer would have compensated for, by not running it along a fabric surface coated in a highly flammable substance (ie dope).NiD.29 (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that there were some exaggerations, but you can't just say that we can't have a claim for anything. Like, for instance, I claim that the Western WW2 documentaries would stop acting like we didn't exist, I don't think that's an unjustified claim. Besides, Protochronism is about Dacians and their role in the forming of the Romanian nation. Dacia was our starting point, Dacians were our ancient ancestors. There is no connection between them and Coanda, and you are being very absurd right now. I know what my nation did, what it deserves and what is it's place. And I see no exaggeration in Protochronism We are Dacians. All of you Westerners squeal like pigs when any afinity to our ancient Dacia is even mentioned, but we know who we are, and we definately don't need YOU to tell us who we are! We are Dacians who eveolved and continued to dwell here. I am a Dacian. I feel and consider myself a Dacian. There's no way for a history-less people like the Americans to tell me who I am. -_- Romanian-and-proud (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protochronism didn't stop with the formation of Romania, but extended to a considerable number of cultural and technical advances, of which Coanda's "jet" is merely one. I couldn't care less about any Dacian controversy or what you call yourself and would be happy to think of you as a Dacian, but that is beside the point. My interest is solely related to cultural theft, when claims are put forward to bolster one country's pride at the expense of those who actually were responsible for the advances.NiD.29 (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Henri_Coandă&oldid=1206728720"