|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ==Terminology==
| |
| | | | |
| − | Jon
| |
| − |
| |
| − | There seems to be an impasse as to whether "bell housing" (two words) is the preferred term, or if "bellhousing" is correct (pls. refer to [http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/index.php?title=Transmission_holding_fixtures&action=history History]). I would appreciate it if a determination would be made on the preferred terminology for bell/housing.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Thanks--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 18:44, 9 February 2012 (MST)
| |
| − | :I'm not finding a clear answer either way. Some words or phrases have multiple acceptable spellings, and it looks like this is one of them. Same with rearend or "rear end".--[[User:Jon|Jon]] 19:43, 9 February 2012 (MST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::OK then, either is acceptable. I have edited the text I submitted to the way I originally submitted it. Member Neighbors can deal with editing to his material if he so chooses.
| |
| − | ::As a "professional courtesy" I'd appreciate it if 'bellhousing' in the text I submitted not be edited further.--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 20:34, 9 February 2012 (MST)
| |
| − | :::I'm fine with either, but keep in mind that, especially with undefined issues like this one, influence over an article is usually proportional to editing contributions. So if it's an undecided formatting or verbiage issue, whoever is the current most significant contributor to an article will likely have the greatest hand in steering its development.--[[User:Jon|Jon]] 23:06, 9 February 2012 (MST)
| |
| − | ::::For the record I've found instances where companies have used both terms. Actually that isn't much of a surprise, seeing as how that's [http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/images/9/92/Snap1_%282%29.jpg seen often] anyway.--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 12:40, 10 February 2012 (MST)
| |
| − | :::::'''What''' I wonder is does Cobalt327 understand that any person on the WIKI can edit any article? The information he has contributed is now a part of the Wiki data base forever and not his personal article only , not to be touched by outside people. I gather this question from Cobalt327's comments on how Neighbors can handle the edits on the information he posted with photos. The Photos posted by Neighbors are also under the question : are they copy righted material. They need further research
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::::I prefer bell housing and '''will edit any item''' on the Wiki I decide to. '''Where''' do we stop the discussion on terminology ? As an example Is it '''disc''' brakes or '''disk''' brakes?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::::As for accuracy and the good of the Wiki... the words bell housing or bellhousing , I hope that would not confuse people. Both are accurate and convey the same meaning.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::::I created the article on transmission fixture devices to answer questions on the main Hotrodders forums...
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Purpose-built fixture for engine stand==
| |
| − | I also question the use of the fixture suggested by Neighbors. If not properly supported the bell housing will crack under the weight of the transmission.--[[User:Crosley|Crosley]] 17:16, 10 February 2012 (MST)
| |
| − | ::If both of you guys are in agreement about removing or altering the details about the fixture posted by Neighbors, then go ahead and address it. You can remove the images, move them to this talk page, put a note in the article that the efficacy and/or safety of that specific fixture is disputed, put a note on Neighbors's talk page, etc. -- whatever you think is best. Regarding the issue of "bellhousing" vs. "bell housing", I understand it to be a toss-up, based on personal preference. In such a situation, control of the terminology goes to whoever is currently the most significant contributor to an article. This is not a perfect solution, but I do believe it to be more or less fair. Wiki has a huge advantage over forums in that you can have a heated, no-holds-barred debate on an article's talk page, while the article itself remains pristine and and professional.--[[User:Jon|Jon]] 11:01, 12 February 2012 (MST)
| |
| − | :::I concede to whatever Crosley decides on bell housing/bellhousing on this article, as he is the originator and main contributor. I also believe there's room for using either/or, depending.
| |
| − | :::As to the SolidWorks software rendering (or whatever program was used) of the 'Purpose-built fixture for engine stand' by member Neighbors, I did a search using several terms in both Google web and Google images and did not find it. That type of program is readily available to students and others, and in that it seems to lack some fundamental elements to be used as it's presented here, I'd tend to believe that it was done by that member.
| |
| − | :::I agree there is a definite safety concern if supporting the weight of the transmission by only two bolt holes. As far as the fixture itself I can understand the concept but I cannot visualize how it would work as it's currently presented. It would seem that the transmission would be not be held level '''or''' straight up and down judging by the angle of the fixture.
| |
| − | :::In any event I support any or all of Jon's suggestions as how to proceed.
| |
| − | ::::Seems like the next step is to ask Neighbors about the fixture.--[[User:Jon|Jon]] 15:39, 12 February 2012 (MST)
| |
| − | :::::Done.--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 16:16, 12 February 2012 (MST)
| |
| − | ::::::Until such time there's a response from Neighbors, I've removed the questionable text and images from the Transmission holding fixtures page.--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 17:59, 22 February 2012 (MST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::::'''Purpose-built fixture for engine stand'''
| |
| − | ::::::The fixture below is currently under review due to safety concerns. Proceed with extreme caution.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::::Universal fixture to use in existing engine stands; allows transmission to be rotated and pinned in position. Made from readily available material, plate is match drilled and tapped for each transmission 'family', and transmission is secured using two bell housing bolts. Allows full access to pump and valve body.
| |
| − | ::::::<gallery>
| |
| − | File:Weldment, Trans fixture iso.jpg
| |
| − | File:Weldment, Transmission fixture.jpg
| |
| − | </gallery>
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Jon, all:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Jon,
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Just stopped back by to look at a few things, noticed the transmission fixture I uploaded had a bit of discussion followed by removal. I don't know how to join the conversation there, but let me relay a few things if I might add. I use the fixture almost daily, and have so for the last ten years when I built the thing (based on a old OTC catalogue I saw some years ago). I've used the fixture on everything from C4's to E4OD's without a single incident (save for the E4 being too long to rotate 360*, LOL!). The drawing is in AutoCAD, FWIW. I'm a mechanical engineer by trade with 23 years experience designing seismic equipment (off-road vibrators, marine streamers), diesel-electric hybrid buses, and been a fairly active car guy for over 33 years (do quite a bit of trans work, rear end work, SFC's, rollbars and cages, make disc brake conversion brackets, and a -very- good reputation for my quality, performance, and value)...
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I'm leary of some of the other suggestions on the fixture page (a bucket?! Come on...), and am confident by design and use that the fixture I detailed and uploaded is safe and sound...the span of the fixture picks up half the bellhousing. Care for some pictures?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I post my material, that I create. Original drawing, photos, etc.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | As for the choice of terms, I prefer 'bellhousing', but at times do make a typo or eight...
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Best regards,
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Chris Neighbors--[[Special:Contributions/98.198.153.123|98.198.153.123]] 14:04, 30 August 2012 (MDT)
| |
Your Privacy Choices