Jump to content

Talk:Henri Coandă/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Avrocar?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

The whole IP range 79.116.xxx.xxx is the problem. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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)

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)

  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)

"The Facts" PDF

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)

  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
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."[1] 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.[2] 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)
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)
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)
Touché! I'm not arguing with that. Sausage down an alley (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
    • "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)
    • 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)

Article protection

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)

  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
Sorry, no bias I am afraid just Wikipedia:WRONGVERSION MilborneOne (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
    • 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)
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)
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)
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)

Unreliable source

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: [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7]. 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)

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)
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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Henri_Coandă/Archive_3&oldid=1267516506"