text:
Talk:Daemon Tools

Expansion
I don't know personally, but wouldn't this be a good place to put reasons why Daemon Tools are useful? Aside from its actual function, what would it actually be used to do? Are there legitimate uses for it, aside from bypassing copyright protection? Thray 14:27, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree, this article's bit about copyright infringment REALLY makes it seem like this program (and all others hy people use this program would be similiar to other disk image emulation programs) and give a quick summary.

 * I really hope this software is released under a open source license (like the GNU GPL), too many good closed sourced programs like this, and DVD Shrink / DVD Decryptor are being threatened out of existance because of the copyright war. --ShaunMacPherson 19:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * There are indeed legitimates reasons to use this. People who have a lot of games or other software which require the CD to be in to use find it very irritating to constantly have to change the CD in the drive. Also, copying a CD to an image on the hard disk is a valid way to prevent scratching of an expensive original disk. And also, some people don't waste money on CD-ROM drives on all their machines, preferring to have just one machine with a CD drive and use that machine to make images which are moved over a LAN to the machine that uses the software. Ben Morris 18:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I use it to test DVDs before I burn them to disk. The DVD authoring software produces a .iso file and I can mount it with Daemon Tools as though it was a real DVD... if my DVD player software plays it correctly, then I can burn disks knowing that they'll work. Mark Grant 15:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright infringement illegal?
The article says that "copyright infingement is illegal in most countries". It was my understanding that copyright infringement is always illegal, and in places where it is not, this is because it is not considered copyright infringement. That is to say, in countries that have copyright laws, infringing those will always be illegal, it is just that different things count as infringement in different countries. Also, copying of closed source copyrighted material is not necessarily copyright infringement, as most countries have fair use provisions (e.g. there is often an archival and/or personal use provision). --Superiority 00:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

 * It's infrigement from developers point of view. :) Rikis 08:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

 * You may have a point. However: If US - which has laws - stuff is copied in Uganda - which might have no such thing - it might still be called infringement by the US party, or am I seeing things too relatively? Zanaq 19:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Depends on the status of their treaties regarding intellectual property rights.

2CENTS: I think it has a strong 'anti-piracy' bias. There are many legitimate uses for the program and they should be addressed.

 * Copyright infringement could be a civil matter rather than a legal matter. Ie: If you violate copyright, you could face a lawsuit but no jail time.  In that case, could it still be said to be illegal? - 71.197.117.166 21:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Spyware
I am changing "adware" to "spyware" in the Daemon Tools description because WhenU SaveNow is known to do affiliate cookie hijacking. Dajhorn 06:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Adware/Spyware? Where?
I'm using daemon tools for a long time and i sever saw any spyware on it. If you mean optional trash you can toggle on install... then i may have disabled it every time. But i can't remember. And i definitely don't have spyware on my computer. I use many tools and check very often. And this is a pretty well-known spyware you're talking about. So: Where is it? You must add external references to this thesis, or else i'll remove the parts about the ad/spyware. (See "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.") (I got captcha-enabled scripts to ensure this.) Because to me this looks like slander from alcohol soft. Please explain & verify! Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.100.57.59 (talk • contribs).

 * It is indeed "optional trash you can toggle on install". Try installing it with every checkbox on to verify for yourself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomas Castiglione (talk • contribs).

I just installed it straight off their web site. I think the "however the installation is optional and can be deselected during the install process" is disingenuous because it doesn't label it as spyware; it says "Daemon Tools Search Bar - sponsor displays contextual links and offers (Internet connection required)". I presume this is the spyware, but it's masquerading behind technogibberish. It doesn't flag it as spyware/adware or optional. If you didn't know any better (and if you weren't looking for it) it would be easy to miss. As for the "easily uninstalled", well, you have to know it's there. This is spyware by stealth. Because the existing text makes it out to be flagged out and easily deselected, well, that just isn't true. I'm changing the page on this basis. And to Daemon if you are listening, I think this really stinks. I will however keep my edits clear and unemotional. I also checked the WhenU web site which says it is "The SearchBar interface and new user enhancements, designed to maximize your online and desktop experiences." This doesn't make clear it's spyware/adware nature. Under the circumstances, I think it's fair to call this what it is. Shame on you, daemon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.213.7.133 (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to contradict the wikipedia entry on spyware. Specifically "Spyware is computer software that collects personal information about users without their informed consent. " Daemon tools insures you know whats you're installing, from beginning to end, and it can even be unistalled without any hassle at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.26.244 (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I changed it back to adware. Although it may be misleading, I would not consider its means of installation as deceitful. Any other changes should probably be fully thrashed out on this page before addition. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Perhaps the adware section should be moved to the end of the article, or atleast after uses.

Call it whatever you want, but daemon definitely knows the nature of this software. I haven't used daemon since the beginning, before it had this spyware/malware. So I just installed it thinking I could trust the source. I have had to uninstall about 3 applications that embedded themselves in my system. Two of them managed to install themselves into Firefox add-ons and tool bars. The first time I used a web browser I was redirected to a page that contained just a single image, and then my Firefox window was resized (I believe in IE this would have made it look like a system message, since the image had xp theme borders and title bar, but in Firefox it just looked silly). The image was a link to obvious malware "errcheck". Again, call it whatever, but if you saw this software on your system you would tread softly for the next few days, and feel violated in the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.41.77 (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Windows 98 support?
When did they stop supporting Windows 98? I want to download the last version for windows 98 for my old laptop

 * v3.47, see this thread --Voidvector (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Supported File Types
DAEMON Tools supports the following image files:

* cue/bin * iso * ccd (CloneCD) * bwt (Blindwrite) * mds (Media Descriptor File) * cdi (Discjuggler) * nrg (Nero) * pdi (Instant CD/DVD) * b5t (BlindWrite 5) * isz (Compressed ISO images) This is taken from the website itself. - Thero

Games Refusing To Run If Daemon Installed
I vaguely remember that The Sims 2 refused to run on my system while I had Daemon installed, it would always say 'please insert the correct disc' or whatever. I would think this would be one of the more well-known examples of such, though unfortunately I can't find any information on it right now. PolarisSLBM 13:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Copy protection systems have looked for disc emulation for a few years now. It's not specific to DAEMON Tools. Chris Cunningham 16:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Actually the article mentions that some programs look specifically for the drivers associated with DAEMON Tools, and refuse to run if it's installed.Balderdash707 (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming
If the product is "styled DAEMON Tools by its creators," why shouldn't the article refer to it thus, and be thus named? 71.243.129.191 17:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article should be renamed to "DAEMON Tools" obviously. --85.210.2.164 (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

 * See Manual of Style (capital letters) and Manual of Style (trademarks). - Cyrus XIII (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Version history
Can someone describe the feature difference between pre-adware (v3) vs post-adware (v4)? Is the newer version able to handle more protection types, etc.? Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2007

Cleanup
I've cleaned up the article a bit. I've listed the editions and their differences. I also removed the uses section, as it just mimics the list found in optical disc authoring software. Andareed (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Security Concerns
I understand why Andareed reverted my changes on the daemon tools page so I've condensed it and moved it into security concerns section. Please see WhenU, Gatory, page on why such separate section are neccessary to advise users of the potential problems with installing adware supported software. Such information must not be misplaced inside other sections since it cloaks it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.166.188 (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Both Kazaa and Messenger Plus! Live have longer sections devoted to its included adware, so an adware section for Daemon Tools seems reasonable to me, as long as it stays NPOV, which was my original concern. I've renamed the section to "Adware". Andareed (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bundled 'Sponsor' Adware / Spyware
Yes, DT Basic includes it, and yes the noted citation [2] shows that you have to install the sponsor, but this is not true. I have been using DT for a number of years now, and when they went public with their commercial product I was on of the loudest outspoken critics on their forums, saying they needed to keep it free. Basically, you can install DT Basic for free, without installing the sponsor at all and after that the program runs fine regardless of whether you installed the sponsor or not.

The citation, as I stated, is correctly linked, but it is *that* page that is cited that needs to be changed - the sponsor is not *mandatory* it is optional.

I'll try to bring this up on the DT forums to see if they will make an amendment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnlgalt (talk • contribs) 10:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a change trying to clarify as best as I can. I've used D-Tools forever but I always just pulled the version out of my download directory. Well, I went to grab it today and saw all this LITE stuff so I checked here to see what the deal was. When I saw this mandatory adware I was concerned. I looked around and confirmed that it is just like it has always been with version 4.x. It tells you on install that there is an option for it and you can say no. Then you go on your merry way. So yes, maybe the FAQ needs to be fixed but the information on the page is just outright wrong. You don't have to. I don't have time to read and memorize the wiki editing rules so maybe y'all will slap me down and call me Ginger but something just seems really wrong about having wrong information and not fixing it because it comes from a FAQ. 68.102.180.134 (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is this represents original research. I don't doubt what you added is correct, but we need a reputable source to say this. Andareed (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Lite GUI
Can someone explain/confirm why the comparison chart says that the Lite edition does not have a graphical interface? This seems kind of silly. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Lite only includes a tray-icon; I've updated the table to reflect this. Andareed (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The data in the table is not clear and implies that Lite has a GUI. A tray icon is not a GUI.  According to the DT website, Lite does not have a GUI.  The table should also be updated to reflect that the Pro Basic has been discontinued, and that some of the features have changed for the other versions. 71.200.140.35 (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

filesystem editors
be an ip and don't want to register so if someone create the link. think it could be usefull to update the article with a table like audio video software that list import export and compatible with HFS. for example ultraiso support iso but magic iso support HFS filesystem of hybrid CD ( iso +hfs). the nero tool support iso+hfs so size of ultraiso + magic iso = size of nrg create using nero. So import export table could be usefull with mount option .. many sofwtare exist like winimage ultraiso neroburning magic disc magic iso ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.58.147.81 (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

4 Editions?
As I'm writing this, the Editions part of the article reads: "'Since version 4.00, four editions of the product exist: Lite [Commercial], Pro Standard and Pro Advanced.'" But I only see the name of three editions not four: (1) Lite [Commercial], (2) Pro Standard and (3) Pro Advanced! I have also visited Product Comparison page on Daemon tools web site and see no more than three. Is there another fourth edition written in invisible ink or is it really a counting error?

You know, there are three types of people: Those who can count and those who cannot! ;) Fleet Command (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Some suggestions...
I think a link to the Daemon Tools homepage would be a good idea. That's why I'm here. I took the first link Google offered and was surprised to find that the site had some words that were not English. This was unexpected, and my first thought was that the "daemon tools" text had been hijacked by someone that is NOT the author, and the searches were being re-directed AWAY from the legtimate Daemon Tools site.

Some explanation as to the nationality, etc... of the authors, some indication that non-English words on the home page would be a good thing.

Also, it would not hurt to directly solicit the software's authors and have them take some responsiblity for this article. It would only help them, as well as other people.

In terms of "nuts & bolts", WHY the software is useful (instead of being greyware used to circumvent copyright protection schemes) is that it allows a legal owner of software to create an image file of their software and emulate the physical disk's existance on their computer when using the software (such as playing a game). This prevents the physical disk from being subject to scratches and other damage (including loss). You can image the CD, and then store it safely while using the image file to emulate the CD being in the optical drive. BIG (and completely legitimate) use for Daemon Tools.

Another thing worth mentioning is that the sptd.sys driver is different than the standard MS drivers etc... and doesn't behave the same. I've just run a Repair Install (aka "upgrade") of WinXP and have just discovered I'm going to have to reinstall Daemon Tools because (unlike all my other software) something has happened to the way in which WinXP handles the Daemon Tools software. Meaning, everything else works just fine, but Daemon Tools needs to be reinstalled. Not exactly sure why this is, but I'm sure it's normal, and worth mentioning in the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Version Listing
Currently the version listed is 4.35.5.0068 which applies to the daemon tools lite version. A few days ago it listed the current daemon tools pro/pro advanced version (v4.35.0306). I'm wondering whether the version listed on the article's page should list the DTLite or the DTPro version since they seem to differ. 65.10.2.172 (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Present adware content is not explicitly clear from the description
The way the description of the program is worded does not make it explicitly clear for the reader that the program's Lite version indeed contains adware, be it optional or mandatory. It does implicitly hint at it ("Versions prior to v4.00 had only one edition. That edition was freeware, had no adware, and was solely an imaging disc-emulation software (no image conversion, creation, burning, and so forth). Version 3.47 is the last such version."), but *does not make it explicit*. I do believe that this is indeed a serious concern, especially in case of a piece of software which relies on using a *rootkit*, even out of unavoidable necessity, for it to successfully emulate copyright protection. Apart from my personal views that it is extremely bad politics for a software company to put off potential (more experienced) buyers of even Pro (non-free) versions of the software by anyhow getting related to the adware/spyware terms, I do believe that readers of the Wikipedia article are not mislead only if the wording of this is modified to make it perfectly clear that the program is indeed bundled with additional software. (Especially since with certain versions even users who chose not to install the toolbar and other 3rd party programs, got stuck with these programs installed anyway, see the relevant Deamon tools forums, and other related tech forums and talks.)

I advise therefore that the (original) editor(s) modify the description to make it more explicit, like "Lite version since v4.00 contain bundled (optional) adware." This is still all very fair to the writers/owners of the software, and does not even tackle the adware/spyware differentiation, and raises no concern of the dangers what a rootkit-based program with bundled adware might be capable of even without the average user's consent.

94.248.149.113 (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Balazs

Blacklisting circular reference
The first paragraph immediatley following the Blacklisting heading cites http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=187641 as the source, however this site contains the same paragraph word for word and cites this article as the reference. This means this article is citing itself. I have searched online for any other reference or examples of software that, when installed, will uninstall Daemon Tools if it is present on the system as claimed in this paragraph, however I could find no such reference. I have removed this section from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.217.86 (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, has the software been bought out?
The previous versions seemed to have version histories written by fairly literate Eastern European types. Has the program since been bought out by someone for whom english is their fourth or fifth language? Nevard (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability guideline
Taken aback by this - Daemon Tools is by far most popular disk image emulator for Windows OS. Because of the "grey area" nature of this kind of software it doesn't get much "official" publicity, but simply checking Google Trends shows that it's way ahead of all competition. 62.152.141.163 (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Rootkits
Why is in category Category:Rootkits ? --212.183.198.9 (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably beacuse the software indeed contains a rootkit - a fact that is now altogether missing from its description on the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.115.88 (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

DAEMON or Daemon
So I made this edit a moment ago, making the article more consistent in its use of "Daemon" over "DAEMON" is prose text ("Daemon" already being used in the article title [UDPATE: not any more!]). This was reverted by FleetCommand (as is his/her prerogative under WP:BRD) with the edit summary "Product name is a copyrighted property of the author and not yours to play with." This I disagree with on a number of levels: I therefore recommend that my edit be reinstated. Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 11:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, copyright does not apply to two words (I can cite caselaw if required for this, which I see from the warning on my talk page I may have to *sigh*). Even if it did, it doesn't (by definition) affecting changing things when you copy them, only whether or not you can actually copy them in the first place. On both counts, I suspect FC has in fact got trademark (rather than copyright) law in mind. Which bring me on to:
 * Secondly, trademark law protects trademarks against certain kinds of loss-creating use (basically concerning misrepresentation), not against changing capitalisation
 * Thirdly, the Manual of Style is unequivocal that names in all-caps should be changed to title case to make them easier to read (first section, third bullet point).
 * Hi.
 * First, copyright applies to the software product as a whole. When something is protected by copyright, no single part of it can be violated; it does not matter if that part is by itself not copyright-eligible.
 * Second, you seem to mistake trademark laws for copyright laws. Trademark laws are not our concern here. If I studied them and decided that they'll apply, I'll call you.
 * Third, WP:CAPSACRS supports DAEMON Tools because acronyms and initialisms in Wikipedia may be written in capital letters. I also read Manual of Style/Trademarks but it seemed to me that it was talking about all caps not part caps.
 * Fleet Command (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: WP:CAPSACRS is part of WP:MOS-CL. Smurf! I need a lightening fast Internet connection to catch up with you. Fleet Command (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed your reply earlier.
 * Your conception of copyright here is very different from the law's. I can assure you that there is no copyright problem here.
 * I only mention trademark law to support you, because I couldn't believe that you were trying to make a copyright point.
 * I agree partly here, and it's definitely your strongest point. Yes, Daemon is an initialism. I would argue, however (i) it's already being referred to in third party sources in lowercase (and thus is well on its way to being the next "scuba" or "laser") (ii) it's forced, and hence few people are even aware it is an acronym at all (iii) it looks uncomfortable in prose. Consequently, while I agree there is room for divergent opinion, it would surely be better to ignore the fact that it's an acronym, follow MOS:TM and render it in title case.
 * Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 16:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay! So, let it be "Daemon". I do not agree with you but I think I do not have to; all discussions must eventually end with a result. We can agree to disagree. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: The above applies equally to (reversing) the page move. Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 11:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad! I was moving the article as well when you made the change and was in the middle of it. Unfortunately, the talk page moved but not the article itself. And I can't revert it. Please wait while I call an admin for help, so that the talk page retain its original name while we are talking. I'll be back in a sec. Fleet Command (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've moved it back. Incidentally, this showed up the fact that the article was originally at DAEMON and moved under a join WP:MOS-TM and WP:MOS-CL, both of which are relevant to the discussion above. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 12:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now I have to remove my admin help request. Fleet Command (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted shortcut
There's no reference for the alleged abbreviation of the 'DAEMON' part in 'DAEMON Tools'. The name has no special meaning. SwENSkE (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Daemon Tools. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111113165232/http://daemon-help.com:80/en/windows_integration_lite/file_associations_lite.html to http://www.daemon-help.com/en/windows_integration_lite/file_associations_lite.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708220310/http://daemonpro-help.com/en/glossary.html to http://daemonpro-help.com/en/glossary.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402203945/http://www.pcworld.com:80/downloads/file/fid,73988-order,4/description.html to http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,73988-order,4/description.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Daemon Tools


text:
Battle of Glen Shiel

The Battle of Glen Shiel took place on 10 June 1719 in the Scottish Highlands, during the Jacobite rising of 1719. A Jacobite army composed of Highland levies and Spanish marines was defeated by British government troops.

The Rising was backed by Spain, then engaged in the 1718–1720 War of the Quadruple Alliance with Britain. Originally intended to support a landing in south-west England, which was cancelled several weeks earlier, its failure was seen as having fatally damaged the Jacobite cause.

The battlefield is now included in the Inventory of Historic Battlefields in Scotland, and protected by Historic Scotland.

Background
When the War of the Spanish Succession ended in 1713, Spain lost its Italian possessions of Sicily and Sardinia, and their recovery was a priority for Giulio Alberoni, the Chief Minister. Sardinia was reoccupied in 1717 but when they landed on Sicily in July 1718, the Royal Navy destroyed the Spanish fleet at the Battle of Cape Passaro, beginning the War of the Quadruple Alliance.

To divert British resources from the Mediterranean, Alberoni devised a plan for 7,000 Spanish troops to land in south-west England, march on London and restore James Stuart. Historians question how serious he was; since Alberoni was one of the few contemporary statesmen with experience of amphibious operations, he was well aware of how unlikely this was. Cape Passaro demonstrated the Royal Navy's power in far less favourable circumstances, which meant the Spanish fleet was unlikely to even reach England, let alone be allowed to disembark large numbers of troops. When the Spanish fleet finally left Cádiz in March, it was battered by a ferocious storm, and took refuge in Coruña, where it remained.

The plan included a simultaneous rising in Scotland, whose purpose was to capture the port of Inverness, and allow a Swedish expeditionary force to disembark. Driven by Charles XII of Sweden's dispute with Hanover, it shows the complexity caused by its ruler George I also being British monarch. Charles died in November 1718, ending any hope of Swedish support, and thus the entire purpose of the Scottish uprising.

In the end, only two frigates carrying George Keith and 300 Spanish soldiers reached Stornoway in the Isle of Lewis. Here they were joined by exiles from France, including the Earl of Seaforth, James Keith, the Marquess of Tullibardine, Lord George Murray and Cameron of Lochiel. On 13 April, they learned of the failure elsewhere; Tullibardine, who was commander of Jacobite land forces, recommended retreat, but Keith prevented this by ordering the two frigates back to Spain.

With no other option, the main force of some 1,000 Highlanders plus the Spanish troops prepared to march on Inverness, leaving their excess stores at Eilean Donan guarded by 40 Spaniards. On 10 May, a British naval squadron captured the castle, blocking any escape by sea, while Joseph Wightman's force of around 1,000 men with four Coehorn mortars advanced towards Glen Shiel. On 9 June, they reached Loch Cluanie, less than 8 miles (13 km) from the Jacobite camp.

Battle
John Henry Bastide, a subaltern in Montague's regiment who had a long career as a military engineer drew a detailed plan of the battlefield and the movements of the opposing forces soon after the battle. The section detailing the battle itself is missing but it is possible to reconstruct the main elements.

Tullibardine prepared a strong position near the Five Sisters hills, with the Spanish in the centre and the Highlanders on the flanks behind a series of trenches and barricades. Wightman's force arrived about 4:00 pm on 10 June and began the attack an hour later by firing their mortars at the Jacobite flanking positions. This caused few casualties but the Scots had not encountered mortars before, allowing four platoons of Clayton's and Munro's to advance up the hill to their lines, then use grenades to bomb them out of their positions.

Once the Jacobite right had been dislodged, Harrison and Montague attacked the Jacobite left under Lord Seaforth. This was strongly entrenched behind a group of rocks on the hillside but skilful use of the mortars forced Seaforth's men to give way while he himself was badly wounded. Commanded by Colonel Nicolas de Castro Bolaño, the Spanish in the centre stood their ground, but had to withdraw up the mountain as their flanks gave way.

The battle lasted until 9:00 pm; several accounts claim the heather caught fire and smoke combined with failing light enabled the bulk of the Scots to disappear into the night. The Spanish surrendered the next morning, meanhwile Lord George Murray, Seaforth and Tullibardine were wounded but the Jacobite leaders also managed to escape. An analysis by historian Peter Simpson attributes Wightman's victory to skilful use of mortars, the superior firepower of his grenadiers and the aggression shown by his infantry.

Aftermath

Jacobite casualties were hard to estimate since few bodies were left on the field and most of the wounded escaped, among them Seaforth and Lord George Murray, while Wightman lost 21 killed and 120 wounded. Lord Carpenter, commander in Scotland, advised London pursuing the rebels was impractical, and it was best to let them go, arguing the Rising had only damaged the Jacobite cause. Tullibardine concurred; in his letter of 16 June 1719 to the Earl of Mar, he provides a description of the battle, and states "it bid fair to ruin the King's Interest and faithful subjects in these parts".

The captured Spanish regulars were sent to Edinburgh Castle where they were held for four months, before returning to Spain. In October 1719, a British naval expedition captured the Spanish port of Vigo, held it for ten days, destroyed vast quantities of stores and equipment, then re-embarked unopposed, with huge quantities of loot. This demonstration of naval power led to Alberoni's dismissal, and ended Spanish support for the Jacobites.

Senior Jacobites like Bolingbroke, Seaforth and Lord George Murray were allowed home, while others took service elsewhere. James Keith became a Prussian general, and was killed at Hochkirch in 1758. George Keith joined the Prussian diplomatic corps; he refused to join the 1745 Rising, and was ambassador to Spain from 1759 to 1761. Although pardoned in 1763, he died in Potsdam in 1778.

Tullibardine remained in exile, took part in the 1745 Rising, and died in the Tower of London in July 1746. Lord George served as one of Prince Charles' senior commanders, and died in the Dutch Republic in October 1760.

Conservation of battlefield
The mountain where the action was fought is called Sgurr na Ciste Duibhe; a subsidiary peak named Sgurr nan Spainteach, or 'Peak of the Spaniards', commemorates the Spanish marines. Now owned by the National Trust for Scotland, the stone breastworks built on the northern slope are a rare example of surviving fieldworks in Britain, and designated a scheduled monument.

In advance of the 300th anniversary of the battle, the National Trust for Scotland was involved in an archaeological survey of the site. Finds included ammunition from the mortars which were deployed against the Jacobite forces.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Battle of Glen Shiel


text:
Talk:Lorenz gauge condition

Untitled
This page has been temporarily redirected. If the material on this topic grows, it can be brought back into this page. Bambaiah 14:26, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think this needs to be moved to Lorentz gauge (Wikipedia is not a place to right wrongs.)
None of my textbooks use the term Lorenz gauge for this. Griffiths E&M even has a footnote on page 421 of third edition saying:

"There is some question whether this should be attributed to H.A. Lorentz or to L.V. Lorenz (see J. Van Bladel IEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine 33(2), 69 (1991)). But all the standard textbooks include the t, and to avoid possible confusion I shall adhere to that practice."

Griffiths is 12 years old and is the youngest text I own. But a very quick search on Google seems to confirm that the situation hasn't changed. It is hard to find anyone but wikipedia who uses the term Lorenz gauge.

Wikipedia is not a place to right wrongs. Even if Lorenz invented the gauge, the Lorentz gauge condition is hardly the only equation to be wrongfully attributed. Indeed, attributing the wrong person seems more of the norm than not.

TStein (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Tstein, My understanding of it is that it was the Danish scientist Ludwig Lorenz and not the Dutch scientist H.A. Lorentz who was responsible for it. The Lorenz gauge came about in 1867, shortly after Maxwell's 1865 paper, and I recall reading that Maxwell himself was furious about it, as he believed that Lorenz had totally missed the point and messed Maxwell's work up, especially in relation to the famous derivation of the electromagnetic wave equation in the 1865 paper, which depended upon the Coulomb gauge. H.A. Lorentz (1853-1928) would have been too young at that time to have been involved. Anyway, here is a source which attributes it to Lorenz as opposed to Lorentz. . And also this . David Tombe (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Thanks for those sources! They look quite useful (as is the IEEE source in Griffiths) for the history section.

 * My main concern, though, is not who the equation is named after. Rather, I am interested in using the same name for it as everyone else, whether that name is Lorentz gauge or Lorenz gauge or the Hockey Puck gauge. I think the information that you stated should be easily and prominently available on the Lorentz gauge page and in limited form as a footnote whenever the Lorentz gauge is introduced in some detail whether on wikipedia or elsewhere on the web or in print. Then, whenever the mainstream science leans enough towards calling it the Lorenz gauge we should move the page to Lorenz gauge. I don't think that time is now and I definitely don't think wikipedia should be the vanguard in this fight or any fight no matter how right it is.

 * With redirects, I probably shouldn't care too much about this either way. It is frustrating, though, when people start replacing the term 'Lorentz gauge' by 'Lorenz gauge' in articles such as Maxwell's equations. It distracts from the main article and causes confusion when there should be none.TStein (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Tstein, Well certainly if there might be a large number of people who would want to look up information about the 'Lorenz gauge', but who wrongly think that it is called the 'Lorentz gauge', then we do need to provide some kind of re-direct mechanism. Errors of this kind in the literature usually begin at one particular source and then spread. My attitude to such errors is to always ignore them (or to correct them where that is possible) and to carry on operating on the basis of the correct information. As such, I would never do anything to facilitate the propagation of false information. I would always be in favour of re-directs to the correct state of affairs. If wikipedia has any policy that would be such as to give priority to false information over correct information on the basis of some technicality, I would always leave such a policy for somebody else to enforce. I would never do anything to encourage the spreading of the false information and hence to perpetrate the problem. False information is like a virus, and it needs to be resisted. It may not be wikipedia's policy to right great wrongs, but I personally would never play any part in facilitating the perpetuation of wrongs. I would say that since you know that 'Lorenz gauge' is correct, then it's best to leave the problem for somebody else to deal with. David Tombe (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

 * David, It is only false if you expect that the name of an equation represents the person who first came up with it. I view the name of an equation as just a name accepted and promoted by the community that uses it and that sometimes reflects the person who invented it. (Often it does not for historical reasons.) From this perspective to call something the Lorenz force when the community calls it the Lorentz force is false.

 * You have a strong historical interest and knowledge and I respect that. I agree with your zeal to attribute equations to the right person (when possible to determine who that person is). If this article was primarily about the history of physics I would have no qualms at all. But this article is primarily about how physics is understood today. As such it needs to use the language of today even when that language is not historically accurate. TStein (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Tstein, Let me check out a few more sources and I'll get back to you. David Tombe (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Tstein, OK, I've checked, and Goldstein, Eyges, and Grant and Philipps all use 'Lorentz Gauge'. Hence the problem is more prolific than I had at first realized. So I'll not stand in the way of what you wish to do. David Tombe (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I swear I had replied to this. For what it's worth, I think this article should be located at Lorenz gauge (as it currently is). This is not a case of people thinking Lorentz had something to do with it (as it would be in a Feynman diagram vs Stuckelberg diagram dispute)" it's just a case of a typo propagating itself through history. Sources quite reliably document this (See J. van Bladel (1991). "Lorenz or Lorentz?". IEEE Antennas Prop. Mag. 33(2):69 given as a reference). The misattribution should however be noted in the lead, or at the very least with a note. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Headbomb, Based on what I wrote earlier, I'd also be inclined to leave it as it is. Tstein did however have a legitimate point, but personally I always favour accuracy. And I see that the misattribution has already been noted in the lead. David Tombe (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me note that, although Griffith's is a standard book for undergrads E&M, that does not mean there is no error; J.D. Jackson's book (the Bible for graduate-level courses) only use Lorenz gauge (see chapt 6.3, page 240 in 3rd edition). Lorenz gauge is (historically and physically) correct, calling it Lorentz gauge is a common error; I also agree to leave it as it is, with the note in the text explaining the misattribution --169.233.215.95 (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Every text book that I have, including the second edition of Jackson calls it the Lorentz gauge. My textbooks are from the 80s and 90s though. I still feel very strongly the wikipedia is not the place to right wrongs. It maybe, though that enough people are taught the name as being Lorenz gauge today as to justify its movement. I won't challenge this. TStein (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Standardize the title, but include discussion of whatever controversy
The standard name is 'Lorentz gauge'. That Wikipedia of all places would have the name wrong is completely ridiculous. Whatever controversy there is over attribution can be included in a section of the article. You can't just unilaterally change the accepted name of a standard concept in physics--if everyone did this, science would descend into incomprehensible babel. JKeck (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If there is any doubt (and there is not): both the Feynman Lectures and J.D. Jackson (2nd edition) call it Lorentz gauge--it goes along with the Lorentz condition. In neither book even is "Lorenz" even included in the index. JKeck (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I pretty sure my copy of Jackson's book (3d ed?) uses "Lorenz" (with a ref. to an OP), and, as I recall, he points out that it is Lorenz, not Lorentz. YohanN7 (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Lorentz invariance
Surely we need a minus to obtain Lorentz invariance ? I have explained this on physicsstackexchange, under "the definition of the Lorenz gauge condition" - tag gauge,

 * $$\nabla\cdot{\vec{A}} - \frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial t}=0.$$ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen William Wynn (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This is saying the Lorentz divergence of the 4 potential is zero. For Lorentz invariance when calculating the divergence in 4 dimensions, the time component has to be subtracted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen William Wynn (talk • contribs) 09:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If (T,X,Y,Z) is Lorentz covariant, the elegant equation
 * $$ \frac {\partial X} {\partial x} + \frac {\partial Y}   {\partial y}

+ \frac {\partial Z} {\partial z}   = \frac {1} {c}   \frac {\partial T} {\partial t}  $$ is Lorentz invariant. If there are no complex numbers or minus signs, then time and space have to be on opposite sides of the equation. This is true for example of the heat equation, the wave equation and, the Lorenz gauge condition.
 * $$ \nabla\cdot\vec A = \frac {1}  {c}   \frac {\partial \phi} {\partial t}$$

Each vector $$ \vec V = (T,X,Y,Z)$$ has a covector $$ \vec C \vec V = (T,-X,-Y,-Z)$$. The derivative :$$ \vec D = (\frac {1} {c} \frac {\partial } {\partial t}, \frac {\partial } {\partial x},\frac {\partial } {\partial y}, \frac {\partial } {\partial z })$$ has the coderivative :$$\vec C\vec D = (\frac {1} {c} \frac {\partial } {\partial t}, - \frac {\partial } {\partial x},- \frac {\partial } {\partial y}, - \frac {\partial } {\partial z })$$: Then the Lorenz gauge condition is given by $$ \vec D.\vec C\vec V =\vec C\vec D.\vec V = 0$$.

We can define a Lorentz product of two vectors $$(t_1,x_1,y_1,z_1)l(t_2,x_2,y_2,z_2)=t_1t_2 - x_1 x_2-y_1 y_2 - z_1 z_2. $$ That is the dot product of four-vectors. So we get a positive time component and  three negative space components. The Lorenz gauge condition is defined by a Lorentz product, that is the derivative with the four potential. So the definition on Wikipedia is clearly wrong, since the time and space components have the same sign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen William Wynn (talk • contribs) 12:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

 * It's pretty simple: $$\partial_\mu A^\mu = \left(\frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}, \vec{\nabla}\right) \cdot \left(\frac{\phi}{c}, \vec{A}\right) = \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial t} + \nabla\cdot{\vec{A}} = 0$$. I believe you're confusing $$\partial_\mu$$ with $$\partial^\mu$$. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 13:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary:
 * $$\partial_\mu A^\mu = \left(\frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}, \vec{\nabla}\right) \cdot \left(\frac{\phi}{c}, \vec{A}\right) = \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial t} - \nabla\cdot{\vec{A}} = 0$$ where we have the dot product of four-vectors with Minkowski signature (+---). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen William Wynn (talk • contribs) 16:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 * You're adding a minus sign for no reason. I still think you're confusing $$\partial_\mu$$ with $$\partial^\mu$$. The Lorenz gauge is $$\partial^\nu \eta_{\mu\nu} A^\mu = 0$$, where $$\partial^\nu = \left(\frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}, -\vec{\nabla}\right)$$ with the (+---) signature. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, my suspicion seems to be confirmed in the above where you define "$$\vec C\vec D$$" (i.e. $$\partial_\mu$$ in more conventional notation). It has the wrong signs. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think I have seen the light. I have been wrong to say the definition of the Lorenz gauge condition should contain a minus. The use of upper indices for the four potential I find very confusing. But it is a convention we have to live with. Stephen William Wynn (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lorenz gauge condition


text:
Aveling and Porter

Aveling and Porter was a British agricultural engine and steamroller (road roller) manufacturer. Thomas Aveling and Richard Thomas Porter entered into partnership in 1862, and developed a steam engine three years later in 1865. By the early 1900s, the company had become the largest manufacturer of steamrollers (road rollers) in the world. The company used a rampant horse as its logo derived from the White Horse of Kent.

Thomas Aveling
Thomas Aveling was born 11 September 1824 at Elm, Cambridgeshire. His mother was widowed while Aveling was still young and the family settled in Hoo (Rochester, Kent). His mother remarried to the Rev. John D'Urban of Hoo. Thomas' stepfather brought him up with "a Bible in one hand and a birch rod in the other". Aveling was apprenticed to Edward Lake, a farmer, of Hoo. Aveling married Edward's niece, Sarah Lake (daughter of Robert Lake of Milton-Chapel near Canterbury) and in 1850 took a farm at Ruckinge on Romney Marsh. In 1851 he was recorded as a farmer and grazier employing 16 men and 6 boys. The business also included a drainage tile works. In 1859, Aveling invented the traction engine when he modified a Clayton & Shuttleworth portable engine, which had to be hauled from job to job by horses, into a self-propelled one. The alteration was made by fitting a long driving chain between the crankshaft and the rear axle. Aveling later invented the steamroller in 1867. Thomas Aveling is regarded as "the father of the traction engine".

Aveling had a reputation as something of a martinet in business, only keeping on the best men. However, he did provide his staff with recreational facilities with a lecture room and mess room. Lectures were delivered on educational, social and political topics with Aveling himself in the chair and participation from the floor encouraged.

Following the success of the Aveling and Porter business, Thomas rose to local prominence, first on the council and then between 1869 and 1870 as Mayor of Rochester. Politically he held rather radical views within the Liberal Party. Not surprisingly (given the location of the Invicta Works) he was a strong advocate of improving the river bank at Strood, which was at that time marsh. As mayor he took an interest in the significant local charity Watts' Charity and was appointed to the board of trustees in 1871. He helped lay out the public gardens in Rochester Castle, sat on the Rochester School Board and was a governor of the Sir Joseph Williamson's Mathematical School.

He was a member of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, serving as councilman 1875–1882 and on various committees. He secured the building of a chemical laboratory for the society. He was a member of the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and the Iron and Steel Institute.

Aveling enjoyed yachting and had his own 28-ton yacht Sally. He was active in the management of several yacht clubs including the Royal Cinque Ports and the Royal Victoria. After contracting a chill on board her in late February 1882 he developed pneumonia and died on 7 March 1882. Aveling is buried at St Werburgh Church, Hoo.

There is a secondary school in Rochester, Kent named after him called The Thomas Aveling School.

Thomas Lake Aveling
Aveling was the son of Thomas Aveling and his wife, Sarah. He was born on 25 August 1856 in Ruckinge, Kent. When he left school he worked for his father, taking control of Aveling & Porter in 1881. After conversion to a limited liability company in 1895 he became its chairman and managing director until he retired. In 1890 he married Richard Porter's niece, Rosita Marian Porter (1865—1904) daughter of Arthur Porter, manufacturing stationer, and his wife born Anna Maria Atkin. They had two sons, Thomas (1892-1982) and Arthur Francis (1893-1954).

As a prominent local businessman Aveling served on a number of public bodies. He was chairman of the Medway Conservancy, on the board of the Rochester Bridge wardens, and a Justice of the Peace. Like his father he was a member of the ICE and IME and RASE. He was president both of the Smithfield Club and the Agricultural Engineers Association. He was on the board of the Maidstone manufacturers of steam wagons Jesse Ellis Ltd. In 1899 he had a 100 foot steam yacht built by Ramage & Ferguson.

Aveling retired from Aveling and Porter in 1928 and died of a heart attack on 5 June 1931 at home in Pettings Court, Ash near Wrotham, Kent.

Major Thomas Aveling MC
Major Aveling was the son of T.L.Aveling and therefore the grandson of the founder. He was born on 20 January 1892 and during the First World War rose to the rank of Major. He was awarded the Military Cross in 1917.

Major Aveling became a director of A and GE, taking control of Aveling & Porter on his father's retirement in 1928.

Richard Thomas Porter
Richard Porter's grandfather John (1736–1812) established a grocery business in Sheffield, Yorkshire. His son Thomas married Ann Girdler and they had Richard in around 1835. By 1861 Richard had moved to Enfield, London where he married Marianne Atkin (b. 1840) who had also been born in Sheffield.

In 1862 he went into partnership with Thomas Aveling and subsequently moved to Rochester where in around 1863 he had his first child, Edith. 1871 he is recorded as living at Boley Hill House with his wife, four children and four servants. His occupation is recorded in the census as "Manufacturing Engineer".

Ten year later in 1881 the census locates him at Raleigh, Fox Grove Road, Beckenham with the family and servants as before plus his widowed sister-in-law Mary Studer. He remained in Beckenham, the house being recorded as 26, Foxgrove Road after 1901. He died in 1913. His will was proven the following year when he was shown as "Engineer and Chairman of Aveling and Porter".

Thomas Aveling, "Ironfounder and Agricultural Engineer"
With help from his father-in-law he was able in either 1850 or 1851 to buy a small millwrighting business at Edward's Yard, Rochester. The business produced and repaired agricultural machinery. Aveling had been concerned by the slow pace of agricultural labour arising from the "ancient and defective construction" of the machines. Starting from 1852 he concentrated on experiments in steam cultivation, culminating in the first steam plough in 1856. So successful was the plough that some Kent farmers presented him with an award of 300 guineas in 1858.

In 1858 Aveling had three premises: 24, High Street, Rochester; 27, Edwards Yard, Rochester; and a small foundry on the site of the future Invicta Works in Strood.

To a man such as Aveling the spectacle of portable engines being dragged around by teams of horses when the engines had more than sufficient power to move themselves seemed nonsensical. He compared using six horses to pull such an engine as "six sailing vessels towing a steamer" which was "an insult to mechanical science". In 1858 he adapted Clayton, Shuttleworth & Co portables by attaching a chain from the flywheel to a cog on a rear wheel. In the following year he obtained a patent for this which included the specification for devices for varying the tension in the chain and for disengaging it "so that a traction engine can be used as a stationary portable engine at will". His foundry and other premises were too small for the construction of a complete traction engine, so the 1859 locomotive was built for him by Claytons.

His 1860 catalogue describes him as an "Iron Founder and Agricultural Engineer". He was the sole agent in Kent for Fowler's Steam Plough, for Burgess & Key's Patent Reaping Machines. He was an agent (though not apparently sole agent) for Claytons. The front page offers "Every description of Agricultural Machinery supplied at Manufacturer's Prices" and ends with "Castings to order", "Machinery and Steam Engines repaired". Inside was "Aveling's Patent Locomotive Steam Thrashing Train" with engine, threshing machine and straw carrier. Not withstanding his claims as an iron founder, this was made for him by Claytons.

Having solved the propulsion issue, Aveling next turned to steering. His first engines had required a horse in shafts attached to the front wheels for steerage. In 1860 he replaced the horse with a steerable wheel in between the horse shafts. The steersman sat on the back of the shafts and operated a tiller to turn the wheel.

In 1860, the business moved to Strood, on a site adjacent to Rochester Bridge. Preston reports the business as being established by 1861 at which time Aveling was able to build $7 1/2$-ton engines.

Aveling and Porter up to 1881
With all this expansion Aveling needed extra capital, and so in 1862 he went into partnership with Richard Porter to create the firm of Aveling & Porter. As well as the capital, Aveling was freed of some of the commercial work.

The firm exhibited their Patent Agricultural Locomotive Engine for Threshing, Ploughing and General Traction Purposes at Battersea in 1862. Aveling moved the cylinder forward from over the firebox to the front of the boiler. The steam jacket that surrounds the cylinders did away with the need for a separate dome (the patent stated that the cylinders were placed within the dome). The jacket reduced condensation, and hence priming, in the cylinders, valve gear and now non-existent supply piping. Ports between the jacket and boiler communicated live steam. The crankshaft was now close to the wheels and the long chain could be first shortened, then disposed of in favour of gears. In 1863 Aveling patented two-speed gearing. Exports at this period were to Prussia and Australia.

Testing traction engines was a public affair, one was tested by driving it through Rochester to the station and back, another by driving it up Frindsbury hill. The local public turned out to see such trials and according to the Chatham News of August 1862 they were "well pleased and altogether favourably impressed". Whilst the local public might have been impressed, more generally opposition to road locomotives was building. The Locomotive Act 1865 (the "red flag" act) was introduced which reduced speeds from the previous limit of 10 mph to 2 mph in town and 4 mph outside. To enforce the speeds a man had to walk in front carrying a red flag to warn bystanders.

Aveling pursued his interest in steamrollers, producing the first practical example in 1865. It was tested in Military Road, Chatham, Star Hill in Rochester and in Hyde Park, London. The machine proved a huge success. Aveling and Porter steam rollers were exported to Europe and as far afield as India and North America.

Starting in 1868 Aveling & Porter started to supply the government with road locomotives, traction engines and rollers. Up until 1894 they were known as Steam Sappers, since they were built to requirements issues by the Royal Engineers (the Sappers). In 1875, the French government conducted trials of steam sappers and were satisfied enough to order some; subsequently the Russian government conducted extensive trials in 1876 involving soft ground, steep inclines and tests of the ability of a train to be safely brought down hill. The test engine was fitted with a wire cable by which guns could be pulled up hill. Several engines were subsequently purchased and gave satisfactory service in the Russo-Turkish war. Sappers were also sold to Italy.

Technical innovation continued. Unlike railway locomotives where equipment is mounted on a frame, traction engines use the boiler as the frame. This cuts down on weight but introduces stresses and holes for the rivets which could be a source of leaks or failures. In 1870 Aveling introduced horn plates which were extensions of the outer firebox and which carried all the motion, cranks and gearing. Preston regards this as one of Aveling's most important inventions. Also in 1870 he took out a patent on a simplified reversing gear. Eight years later he managed to move the gears between the bearings, not overhanging. The resultant motion was stronger and narrower allowing a more compact engine.

At the Royal Agricultural Society of England (RASE) meeting at Leicester in 1868 Aveling showed "Little Tom", a small engine fitted with a crane. By 1874 the catalogue listed a 2-ton crane engine with a rear differential to permit tight cornering without disconnecting either wheel.

On the 1873 Vienna World's Fair Aveling & Porter were awarded prize medals for their steam-rollers. Also a crane version was to be seen and used for the erection of buildings of Vienna Exposition. In 1874 the Scientific American reported about successful "Improved Road and Farm Locomotive".

Aveling and Porter after 1881
In 1881 Thomas' son, Thomas Lake Aveling, took over control of the business. Writing in 1899 Henry Smetham commented that the business had "doubled in size about every six years". Employee headcount rose from 400 in 1872 to 1,000 in the mid-1890s and peaked at 1,500. A new office block was built in 1886, which subsequently housed the drawing office. The adjacent foundry business of Messrs Collis and Stace was purchased in 1895 along with the Pelican Yard. Avelings were now making cement manufacturing machinery (including concrete mixers), lamp posts and girders, the latter of which can be seen in the roof of the covered slip at Chatham Historic Dockyard. In the same year the company was incorporated as a limited company. In 1899 Avelings turned out "one large road engine per day", paid £70,000 pa in wages locally using "220 lathes and other tools". In common with most engineering works Avelings made a lot of their own machine tools themselves. However, in 1900 the Public Health Engineer magazine stated that "modern American machinery is rapidly replacing the older forms of lathes and shaping and planing machines".

In 1901 Aveling took part in a joint venture with Vickers Sons and Maxim to build a steel casting facility. Details were finalised and the plant constructed the following year. By 1903 Vickers were reporting poor results due to insufficient orders (in particular field guns) and in March 1904 pulled out, the works subsequently closing in October 1904. A 21-year lease to William Towler (trading as the Medway Steel Company) followed but then the works finally closed.

In the years prior to the First World War the Pelican Yard was built up and used for the assembly and testing of petrol engines for rollers and lorries. On the outbreak of war petrol work stopped and the works were used as a store. Although concentrating on steam rollers (for which there was an expanding market), the company also made traction engines, ploughing engines, steam wagons and tramway locomotives. Other agricultural products were contracted out. In the early twentieth century Aveling & Porter were supplying about 70% of the British market for road rollers.

Agricultural & General Engineers
In 1919 Aveling and Porter joined the Agricultural & General Engineers (AGE) combine. The combine had been formed at the joint instigation of T.L.Aveling and Archibald Maconochie. As well as Aveling & Porter, AGE took over James and Frederick Howard Ltd and twelve other companies. Production of Aveling and Porter steam wagons was transferred to Richard Garrett & Sons.

The holding company's overheads exceeded any savings of scale. The combine started to drag down A&P, and by 1928 headcount was down and short-time working had been implemented. In 1932 AGE went into receivership, bringing down Aveling and Porter with it. In the aftermath Aveling and Porter combined with Barford & Perkins in 1933 to form Aveling-Barford which continued to make steam and motor rollers. The rescue, part-funded by Ruston & Hornsby of Lincoln, involved the firm moving to Grantham, Lincolnshire, from the Rochester site. After the Second World War the company continued to make motor and steam rollers as well as expanding into other construction equipment.

The sole remaining building on the Strood site was demolished by Medway Council in 2010.

Aveling-Barford is now part of the Wordsworth Holdings Group, a family-owned company. The company is based in Grantham, and still trades under the name Barford which uses a modern version of the Aveling-Barford "prancing horse" logo. Barford manufacturers and sells a wide range of site dumpers.

Products
Aveling & Porter built more steam rollers than all the other British manufacturers combined. They also built traction engines and steam wagons. Just under 600 of the company’s various steam engines survived to enter preservation.

The company also built a few pairs of ploughing engines. A pair of which (unique in the UK) survive in the collection at the Thursford Steam Museum at Thursford, Norfolk. The Thursford Collection includes 27 Aveling & Porter steam tractors and rollers and 16 more by other manufacturers.

Another example of Aveling and Porters engineering skills can be seen in the massive covered slips at Chatham Dockyard. These Leviathans pre-date the great London train sheds of St. Pancras, King's Cross and Paddington—traditionally understood to be the oldest and largest metal framed structures of the time.

Locomotives
Aveling & Porter built several small shunting / tram locos based on their traction engines. They were basically traction engines with flanged wheels and no steering. Their advantages were that they were cheap to manufacture (and to design in the first place) and they could be operated with minimal training by someone who was familiar with traction engines.

Steam Sappers
Prior to 1868 the Royal Engineers had been experimenting with steam traction. Early examples had used modified railway locomotives mounted on a variety of wheels to traverse soft land. The locomotives were far too heavy to be effective, on one occasion breaking through the road near the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich into cellars below. With the development of the relatively lightweight traction engine specifically for road use, the Royal Engineers turned their attention to them.

The first Steam Sapper was ordered from Aveling & Porter in 1868. Steam sapper number 1 was required to operate a 36 inch circular saw, grindstone, lathe and joiner as well as drawing 5 tons up a 1 in 12 slope. It performed this, but was more than a quarter of a ton over the specified maximum weight of five tons. The heaviest field gun in use at that time was the 64 pdr Armstrong breech loading siege gun weighing 95 long cwt. Since pontoon bridges would be constructed to support this gun, steam sappers were required to weigh less than the gun so that they would not overload the bridges. Steam sapper number one had a loading on the rear wheels less than this, and so was accepted.

During 1869 military exercises in Dover included drawing a battery of guns from the railway station up to the castle, a high, steep hill. In September 1870 the 4 wheels (3 ft 6in front, and 5 ft rear) were fitted with bolted on steel and india rubber blocks (L. Sterne & Co Patent), and on 23 September it was subject to another successful trial. Towing a total of 13 tons on two "lorries" (trailers), it left the Rochester works, ascending the 1 in 12 Star Hill, and delivering the load to Chatham dockyard where it was driven across rough ground of cinder, bricks, clinker, stones and iron designed to test the rubber blocks. In a further trial in October it drew 3 "trollies" weighing in total 16 tons 16 cwt up Star-Hill (part of which was 1 in 11 slope), including stopping and making a complete turn on the steepest part of the hill in a circle of 23 feet. It then proceeded to 1 in 10 Chatham Hill which was described as slippery, and it had to detach the last trailer, and ascended towing the other two (12 tons 6 cwt). It was then tested on soft ground, where it drew trucks up to 6 tons, where a normal traction engine got stuck without a truck, and then after bolting paddles on the wheels it towed the normal traction engine out.

Steam sapper number 2 was purchased in 1871. This was a lighter and more powerful engine than number one. The engine was rated 7 nhp (compared to 6), used spur gears for the drive (compared to chain) and used a differential drive on the rear axle to avoid the need to disconnect one wheel which the earlier locomotive had required. On test it drew 15.5 long ton up the 1 in 11 gradient of Star Hill, Rochester.

In late 1871 the Inspector General of Fortifications was informed by the RE Committee that only Aveling and Porter had a suitable engine. As a result, five more were ordered in 1872.

Some of the steam sappers were fitted with railway wheels. Yeatman records steam sappers numbers 3–7 as being 2-2-0T locomotives on the Lodge Hill and Upnor Railway. Yeatman's editor, Mullett and Nowers disagree. Aveling-Barford have checked their records and have no records of any steam sappers being supplied other than for road use. Nowers states that sapper number 9 was fitted with railway wheels for a trial and that sapper number 12 was purchased with them. In 1873, in preparations for the Ashantee expedition, it is recorded "A second locomotive, called a steam sapper, arrived at Woolwich yesterday from Chatham, accompanied by several waggons to form a train, either for running upon rails or common roads, both engine and waggons being provided with flanged wheels for use if necessary". One of the two steam sappers planned to go to Ashanti was not shipped, and in October 1874 there is an account of a steam sapper propelling three "Ashentee" rail trucks containing dignitaries during an artillery demonstration in Eastbourne. In the table below possible railway use is recorded, in most cases this would be upon the LH&UR.

Sapper number 8 was dismantled and sent in parts to Cape Coast Castle in the Gold Coast to take part in the Ashanti Campaign of 1873. The absence of decent roads made its use as a traction engine unsatisfactory. However it performed well as a stationary engine, particularly working the saw bench.

Sapper number 24 was the last Aveling and Porter engine to be called a steam sapper. It was used by the newly formed Balloon Corps in 1885. The locomotive and another one ordered shortly afterwards were used to haul "balloon trains". Each train consisted of five wagons carrying gas cylinders, a water cart, and a wagon for the balloon, basket and winch. Balloons were normally employed as elevated observation platforms and as such were tethered though observers were trained in how to handle free flight in case the balloon broke away.

Aveling and Porter engines continued to be purchased up to 1899 though losing ground to Fowlers. At least one engine saw service in the Boer War and four were still in service in 1906 with the Army Service Corps which progressively took over responsibility for transport from the Royal Engineers between 1903 and 1906.

In fiction
Two Aveling and Porter products are found in The Railway Series books by the Rev. W. Awdry and the TV series based on the books: George the Steamroller, and Fergus the Railway Traction Engine.

The road roller used in the 1953 comedy film The Titfield Thunderbolt, which has a duel with a railway locomotive, was one of their engines (works number 5590, Maid Marion).

title: Aveling and Porter


text:
William Robinson (colonial administrator, born 1836)

Sir William Robinson (9 February 1836 – 1 December 1912) was a British colonial governor who was the last Governor of Trinidad and the first Governor of the merged colony of Trinidad and Tobago. He was also the 11th Governor of Hong Kong.

Early life and colonial services
Robinson was born in 1836 in Suffolk, England. He was the eldest son of the Rev. Isaac Banks Robinson and Jane Susan (née Syer). He entered the Colonial Office at age 18 as a clerk, and within several years served as private secretary to Herman Merivale, Frederic Rogers and Edward Cardwell.

He became a Member of Slave Trade Commission in 1869 and was appointed Governor of Bahama Isles from 1874 to 1880. A year later, Robinson was appointed governor of the Windward Islands, a position he held until 1884. Afterwards, he became Governor of Barbados, and was transferred to become the Governor of Trinidad a year later. In 1889 the colony of Tobago was merged with Trinidad into the united colony of Trinidad and Tobago, with Robinson as its first governor, a position he held until 1891.

Governor of Hong Kong
In 1891, Robinson was appointed Governor of Hong Kong, a position he served until 1898 and later became his last post in the Colonial Services. During his tenure, Sun Yet-Sen graduated from the colony's Medical School. Also, Robinson received the thanks of the Hong Kong government for the settlement of the Fanny Josephine affair (Venezuela).

Personal life
Robinson married twice. He married his first wife, Julia Sophia Dampier, 17 July 1862 at St. Saviour's Church, Paddington. The couple had three sons. She died in 1881 and Robinson married Felicia Ida Helen Rattray three years later, 21 July 1884 in Nassau. She died ten years later and is buried in Hong Kong Cemetery. The couple had three daughters. Robinson himself died of heart disease on 1 December 1912 in London.

Honours

 * CMG, 1877
 * KCMG, 1883
 * GCMG, 1897

Places named after him
Robinson Road, a major thoroughfare in Nassau, Bahamas, is named after Sir William Robinson, during whose term it was laid out. Despite public perceptions to the contrary, there are no places in Hong Kong named after Sir William Robinson. Places in Hong Kong with the name Robinson were actually named for an earlier Governor, Hercules Robinson, later the 1st Baron Rosmead. Robinson, Mark Aitchison Young and Christopher Patten are the only former Governors of Hong Kong who have no places in Hong Kong named in their honour.


text:
Bill Finch (architect)

James H. "Bill" Finch (1913 in Atlanta – July 28, 2003) was an American Architect and founder of architectural firm FABRAP.

Early life and education
Finch graduated from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1936 with a BS Architecture.

Career
Finch was also a retired US Marine Lt. Colonel. He saw combat on Iwo Jima and was, at one part in the epic battle, Executive Officer of the battalion in the 28th Regiment which raised the flag on Mount Suribachi. He also saw service in the Korean War.

Known as a modernist, in a city, he was also reported to have disliked excessive parking lots and unburied wires. Major projects he had a hand in include Atlanta Stadium (1965), Five Points MARTA station (1979), Coca-Cola headquarters (1980) and BellSouth tower (1982) (now Tower Square).

title: Bill Finch (architect)


text:
Talk:Prunus salicina

Since this plant is originally from China, you might talk to the folks at the China-related topics notice board to get the Chinese name, etc. Also, it looks like the German Wikipedia has a couple of more nice photos (see ). Finally, I looked through a couple of my reference books on Japanese poetry, but couldn't find any examples of the use of Sumomo in Japanese poetry. I would assume that it is used both as a subject of waka (tanka), and as a kigo for renga and haiku, but that's just my guess. If you know more, you should probably add it to the article. Blank Verse  ∅  14:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sumomo is not a particularly popular subject in Japanese poetry. It is popular in Chinese poetry. --163.139.215.193 12:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

removal of several language references
I have removed names in various languages. First, the Chinese character 李 refers genus prunus in general (see zh:李属) so detailed information about it, especially about sirnames, does not belong here. For Japanese and Korean, they are linked from 'in other languages'. If those names are not common in English, they should be dealt in dictionaries rather than encyclopedia. --Kusunose 10:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I also have removed the korean language link, as it linked to genus prunus and no artile about prunus salicina (자두나무) is created yet. --Kusunose 10:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

''Restore Asian info., which is extremely important. Character "Li" may refer to "Prunus" genus but it also refers to this very species. More info. is better than less & editors worked hard to add this'' by User:Badagnani
 * More is better only if it's relevant. Names in several languages are relevant so I should not remove them, sorry. As for Asean surnames, I don't think they are relevant.  This very species is called 日本李, Japanese plum.  According to Chinese Wikipedia and English Wiktionary, 李 refers plums in general; Chinese article zh:李 links to plum (genius Prunus subgenius Prunus) and states 'Prunus salicina (Japanese plum 日本李)', zh:李属 links to geneus Prunus, 李 says its primary meaning is plum. --Kusunose 06:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's in dispute that, in ancient Chinese poetry, when 李 is mentioned it is Prunus salicina that is being referred to (not "ume" or any of the European species of plum, which are usually larger and sweeter). The name "Japanese plum" is now used to name P. salicina because, like tofu, it was adopted by the Japanese people and spread around the world by them; thus it is now named "Japanese plum" (even by the Chinese).  Badagnani 16:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll bet "日本李" in the Chinese article zh:李 is a word-for-word translation of the common English name of the plant, "Japanese plum". I believe Prunus salicina is called just "李" or "中国李" in China. Some articles in Chinese Wikipedia are poorly translated from the English version. Correct me if I was wrong. --163.139.215.193 15:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I think this is correct too, but I'm not from there. It would be good to get some input from people in China, but unfortunately Wikipedia has been blocked to all Internet users there for several months now.  Badagnani 20:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I've deleted the "日本李" reference in the Chinese name under etymology. There isno other source for this but zh.wiki, and the context in that article (zh:李) seems to indicate that it is a translation of the English common name. --Sumple (Talk) 09:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

 * That is likely the case; the Chinese appear to have adopted their Chinese-language species name for this plant, "日本李" (instead of using Latin names, because that would require using the roman alphabet), from the English name rather than the Latin name. So in Chinese there is the common name 李 and the species name "日本李."  Badagnani 09:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

 * What? There is no other source other than zh.wiki which says that this is the species name. --Sumple (Talk) 11:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I did a google search for "Prunus salicina" with "李", and the following results appeared:
 * zh:李 says "Prunus salicina" is 日本李;
 * zh:李属 (i.e. Prunus) says "Prunus salicina" is 李 or 中国李
 * eFloras - Chinese Plant Names says "Prunus salicina" is 李
 * every other of the first three pages of reuslts call it either "李" or "中国李".
 * As I said, I think zh.wiki's 李 article is in error as judged by the overwhelming balance of sources, and I am editing accordingly. --Sumple (Talk) 11:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Our sister project has "日本李" and I trusted them on that. The overwhelming majority of Chinese speakers (i.e. PRC) and botanists cannot use more than one Chinese name for this species, and "日本李" seems to be it.  What do the primary Chinese botany sites have for the species name?  eFloras can't be right because the genus and species names can't be exactly the same; the species name has to have some modifier.  We are not talking common names, we are talking the scientific/species name.  The article already says that its common name is 李.  Badagnani 11:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

 * eFlores does not say the genus and the species are the same. The genus Prunus is called 李属 ("Li-related"), and the species is called 李 (Li).
 * And yes, this happens a lot in Chinese scientific names. Mao (猫, cat) is in 貓屬 (Mao genus, or "Mao-related", felis), which is in 猫科 (Mao family, or "Mao-category", Felidae).
 * Again, only zh:李 says it is 日本李. All other sources, including zh:李属, say that Prunus salicina is simply 李 or 中国李. --Sumple (Talk) 11:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It makes sense, but still there is the question of why the writer(s) at Chinese Wikipedia used 日本李, other than using the English common name. I really would like to know what source they used for this.  We always have to use the best, most authoritative sources for our articles.  Badagnani 11:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

 * No sure, but I thought I'll just give you a few more links: this is the google search I did, and here's an academic journal article that calls it 中国李 , and here's a link from the Department of Forestry that uses 李.
 * My theory is that whoever wrote it on zh.wiki just directly translated from en.wiki. Given the small size of the community over there, and the probable lack of botanical experts, it's stayed that way ever since. --Sumple (Talk) 11:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Sumple. --163.139.215.193 17:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Subheadings
Why reduce the font size of the subheadings? I don't think that looks good. Badagnani 23:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My edits re cultivation
Badagnani: "Large variety" is intended to be "many different". Maybe it should be "Diverse varieties" to make it clear.

I mentioned "other species" because I'm not sure that all the fruits that are called li are Prunus salicina. But - you are right. This is about Prunus salicina, notli.

Thanks for your comments re: Australia. Yes it was rather ambiguous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sumple (talk • contribs) 04:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

 * I did a Google photo search for P. salicina and some of them looked like plums I've seen in the grocery store which I'd assumed were all domestica (i.e. the European sweet variety). Some looked like what I would call prune plums, others like the red-colored slightly tart ones.  I don't recall seeing these marketed as Asian, Chinese, Japanese, or whatever, though.  I'd thought that the salicina fruits were tiny, like ume fruits.  So, it could very well be that some of the plums we get in supermarkets in North America are salicina cultivars.  Badagnani 04:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

 * You've made a very astute observation. You are correct; the juicy, lightly-flavored fruit that is commonly sold as "plum" in the United States (or at least the western United States) is actually a cultivar of Prunus salicina, the Japanese/Asian plum. The European plum, Prunus domestica, produces the rather dry fruit with a concentrated flavor that is generally known in the United States as "(Italian) prune." Ebizur 07:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, there are several varieties of plum we get here in the U.S. (I don't know which is which species):

 * The small, egg-shaped ovoid kind with mild, sweet flesh that is labeled "prune plum" (is it also called "damson plum"?)
 * The large, round, nearly black kind that has a reddish-tinged flesh and is sweet, but with a slight tartness, particularly in the skin
 * The medium-sized kind that is fairly bright red speckled all over with yellow flecks, that is sweet but has a lot of tartness, particularly in the skin
 * The kind that is medium or medium-small, round with a slight point, which is a medium light red all over and with a sweet taste
 * The green kind (usually with a slight point at the end) Badagnani 08:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure I understand how many of these varieties could be P. salicina, as I always thought the Chinese li was a very small/tiny fruit. I guess it's like dogs:  you can have both chihuahuas and great danes?  Badagnani 08:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, I think there is probably a great variety among salicina cultivars, just as there is great variety among domestica cultivars. But I am almost certain that most of the extremely watery/juicy varieties that are marketed as "plum" in the United States are salicina cultivars, or at least heavily mixed hybrids of salicina and domestica. Most of the fruits that I have eaten knowing they were from a Prunus domestica tree have had very flavorful, relatively dry flesh. The salicina fruits seem to not have much flavor, but are very juicy. Ebizur 08:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

 * As for those green plums with a slight point at the bottom end, those are called green gage, and I am almost certain that they are an unusually colored cultivar of European Prunus domestica. Note how their flesh is relatively dry and flavorful. Ebizur 08:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

 * My favorite is the red kind with gold specks, because it's very tart (while also sweet). I'd say that I don't like the kinds with the dry flesh, so the ones I prefer must all be P. salicina, if what you say is correct.  I'd say that the very large black kind (with reddish flesh) is watery, but the gold-flecked red kind isn't very watery, with biting tartness yet sweetness.

 * I think that the red kind with gold specks and the black kind with watery, reddish flesh are both cultivars or hybrids of Japanese Prunus salicina. Please check out the information on this website for more details. Ebizur 08:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

 * By the way, if you can find it, the French jelly company St. Dalfour has just come out with French prunes--they come in a glass jar and are huge, with pits inside. They're touted as the world's best prunes and I agree.  Not sure which species or cultivar they are, though.  Badagnani 08:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

 * The plums that are used for drying (to make prunes) are all cultivars of European Prunus domestica. Japanese Prunus salicina does not have a sugar content high enough to allow drying without first slicing the fruit open, removing the pit, and flaying the flesh of the fruit. I'll have to look for those French prunes from St. Dalfour, though; their jams are always wonderful, so I suppose their prunes should be good, too! Ebizur 08:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

 * The "Sorting Prunus names" site says that the Agen plums St. Dalfour uses are P. domestica. They go for $3.50 a jar, containing about 15 prunes, but I can't help but eat all of them within 1-2 days.  The same goes for the newly available Marcona Spanish almonds that have just shown up in the stores.  Badagnani 08:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Prunus salicina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716143954/http://www7.airnet.ne.jp/yamadaya/sumomo.gif to http://www7.airnet.ne.jp/yamadaya/sumomo.gif
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071021200109/http://www.myttc.cn/viewpro.jsp?id=4867&proid=7033 to http://www.myttc.cn/viewpro.jsp?id=4867&proid=7033
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927005419/http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/servlet/page?_pageid=449&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&p_start_url=%2Fpls%2Fportal30%2Fdocs%2FFOLDER%2FIKMP%2FAAP%2FHBH%2FBULLETIN4298_PLUM.HTM to http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/servlet/page?_pageid=449&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&p_start_url=%2Fpls%2Fportal30%2Fdocs%2FFOLDER%2FIKMP%2FAAP%2FHBH%2FBULLETIN4298_PLUM.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Japanese Plum Claim Is Incorrect
The Japanese plum is yellow. This red/purple plum is just Chinese.--174.22.217.220 (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Prunus salicina


text:
Talk:Coulomb gauge

This page has been temporarily redirected. If the material on this topic grows, it can be brought back into this page. Bambaiah 14:29, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Coulomb gauge


text:
Richard Birdsall Rogers

Richard Birdsall Rogers (15 January 1857 – 2 October 1927) was a Canadian civil and mechanical engineer whose most significant achievement was the design of the Peterborough Lift Lock, a boat lift at Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.

From 1874 to 1878, he studied at McGill College, Montreal, graduating with a degree in civil and mechanical engineering. In 1879, he was appointed a Provincial Land Surveyor and, in 1880, he became Dominion Land Surveyor, a position he retained until 1884 when he entered private practice, taking up the post of Superintending Engineer of the Trent Canal.

In this role, Rogers suggested the use of hydraulic lift locks to the Minister of Railways and Canals, John Haggart, who commissioned him to travel to Europe to study existing boat lifts in France (the Fontinettes boat lift), Belgium (Lifts on the old Canal du Centre) and England (the Anderton Boat Lift near Northwich in Cheshire).

Rogers was the grandson of a noted Provincial Land Surveyor, Richard Birdsall who had surveyed most of the lands in the Peterborough area. Named in his honour are Rogers Cove, a park on Peterborough's Little Lake, and Rogers Street, both of which are close to his lift lock.

title: Richard Birdsall Rogers


text:
Talk:Commoditization

Just curious, shouldn't it be Commodification, with a "c"?

No. Commoditization and commodification are totally different concepts. Commoditization is what is defined in this article. Commodification is a Marxist term that means making something for sale rather than for personal use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.168.156 (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Commoditization vs. Commodification
I'm not sure what Rushkoff's blog adds here. Fortunately, his point of view about brand specificity is not reflected in this article--nor should it be. The wiki page seems fine, and its description of commodification competent.

It might useful to add that the difference between a) commoditization and b) commodification has to do with value of things versus the things themselves. Commoditization is the process by which *the values* of things (goods, services) *change* in kind (not only degree) so they are treated as commensurable within a monetary or exchange framework. Commodification is the process by which goods or services enter the monetary or exchange framework. They ultimately have to do with roughly the same situation, but commoditize has to do with the changing of values of things into a marketable metric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.23.238 (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I moved some material
Hello fellow Wikipedians! I found a section in the article on Commodification that was actually about Commoditization, so I moved the three paragraphs of it that would not be redundant to this article. (See the discussion on Talk:Commodification.Nikolaj1905 (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Commoditization


text:
User talk:Fashionpassion

hey lisha

kita
hey kita what`s up girl?

title: User talk:Fashionpassion