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

The result was Keep. Michig ( talk) 07:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Reciprocating electric motor

Reciprocating electric motor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, is not used for any practical application, references do not amount to it being notable in its own right. GliderMaven ( talk) 23:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA 1000 00:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Given how it is has moved back today [1], where the totally non-notable variant has been returned and the rest of the undivided article is still a mish-mash of linear reciprocating shaver motors and the 1830s semi-rotative engines, it's still a firm delete Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I am in process of expanding the article further. Please give me time to complete this before making a decision. Biscuittin ( talk) 10:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I have knocked the article into shape. It still needs further work but I think it can now stand on its own so I request that the deletion and merge tags be removed. It is not just about linear compressors, it is also about machines with crankshafts. Biscuittin ( talk) 12:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Putting a crank on a linear motor changes the electric motor itself in no way. GliderMaven ( talk) 16:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The original article probably was not worth saving, but the work by Biscuittin has made this a worthwhile page. The thing clearly exists, [2] despite claims to the contrary. The design shown here is identical the driving mechanism of old fashioned electric bells (although I have never heard them described as motors) which at one time were ubiquitous in telephones and also used as door bells. There are also book sources [3] that describe modern applications for such a motor. Spinning Spark 22:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I think this article has actually managed to get worse by its expansion.
When it started, it had a simple and clearly defined scope (the kid's demonstration motor). It was a clearly non-notable scope, but at least there was one.
Since then, it has turned into a text match across a Google search. Anything with the words "reciprocating" and "motor" has washed up in here. Doesn't matter that they're unrelated, if the words appear, they go in. That is no way to write an encyclopedic article on a defined topic!
The early motors use a reciprocating solenoid and armature to turn a rotative mechanism. Yet thrown into this same article are compressors and fretsaws that are purely reciprocating. All this in an article that doesn't even have section headings to split them. There's now a proposal at Talk:Electric motor to merge this into linear motor - a motor that provides continuous motion in one direction, without reciprocating.
Articles are written by producing some form of editorial narrative around a defined scope – not by throwing a few keywords into Google and assuming that everything with a match to them is about the same subject. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Andy Dingley's comments remind me of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. A Reciprocating electric motor can provide either linear motion or, with the addition of a crank, rotary motion, but both are Reciprocating electric motors. Biscuittin ( talk) 23:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply
A reciprocating engine does not directly produce linear motion (in the sense of linear motor) any more than it can directly produce rotary motion. In both cases an additional mechanical linkage is required to convert the motion. For instance, a crank for rotary motion, or a ratchet for linear motion. Spinning Spark 16:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Does a Reciprocating electric motor produce linear motion or rotary?
If even this simple definition can't be answered, it indicates that there is no valid scope for this article; it's merely a Google lookup for anything with the word "reciprocating". Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Rotary is round and round, linear is on and on, and reciprocating is back and forth. How is that not a simple definition? Spinning Spark 17:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
That defines the terms, but what does the motor do?
If this article ends up stating "Reciprocating motors go either round and round or back and forth" (as it effectively does at present) that's a strong indication that the claimed scope is invalid and is no more than a trivial text coupling between motors of different concepts. Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm afraid this is standard Andy Dingley practice, which I have encountered many times. He tries to confuse us, in the hope that we will get bored and go away. Biscuittin ( talk) 18:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
That shows that the text string "Reciprocating+electric+motor" appears in several sources. However articles are about concepts, not about strings of text. Do these texts refer to the same concept? Is that concept described here?
This article has been expanded during the AfD. It started out around one concept (which couldn't demonstrate WP:N). It has since expanded to include the early Davis motors (of historical note and probably deserving an article) It has also gone in the direction suggested by Spinning Spark of the non-rotating electric shaver motor. That can demonstrate notability too.
The problem with this article is that it just lumps all three in together. They do not belong together, certainly not when not even described separately. Although the text "Reciprocating+electric+motor" has been used to describe all three, they have little in common beyond the "electric motor" aspect. Their function, design principle, physical principle, construction and direction of delivering power are all far too different to belong in one article. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
At Talk:electric motor Andy Dingley wrote: "There is no more any such thing as a "reciprocating electric motor" than there is a "wiggly springy magnet motor". I am one of many has demolished this claim so Mr Dingley has changed tack and is now attacking the article because it "lumps three things together". The article Electric motor lumps many different types of motor together so would Mr Dingley like to delete this article as well? Biscuittin ( talk) 14:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
That was in reference to the original article, when its scope applied only to the Fun With Magnets motor and the article treated it as if a reciprocating solenoid mechanism driving a cam was a credible way to build a rotating motor.
To stretch this article to make reciprocating motors look like a credible topic you've had to stretch it to also include electric shaver motors that are reciprocating, but don't even try to produce rotary motion. They might belong in their own article, but it makes no sense to bundle both types up together. Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Are you saying that a reciprocating electric motor has to produce rotary motion? Is a linear motor not a motor because it does not produce rotary motion? Biscuittin ( talk) 22:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
A "motor" can wiggle any way that it wants to. However it's a pretty big distinction between rotary and linear motion, or between continuous and back-and-forth motion. This article has now grown to include three completely separate types of motor (i.e. three distinct topics) where two are continuous and rotary and one is linear and intermittent. All of no more basis than including the word "reciprocating" in a Google hit. That is no way to define an article#s scope. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
So do you want me to split it into three separate articles? Biscuittin ( talk) 22:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
If so, please suggest names for them because I'm sure you won't like the names I give them. Biscuittin ( talk) 22:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Two of those topics would at least be coherent and notable. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Which two, and what names do you suggest? Biscuittin ( talk) 23:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Well Reciprocating electric motor works for me, if applied to the electric shaver motors that are linear, back-and-forth motion directly generated from a coil and pole piece acting against a spring. Either AC or AC/DC with interrupter points. Those are commonplace, easily WP:Notable and match the name.
The point is, as this AfD was originally raised for, is to get rid of the coverage of the Fun With Magnets motor that is in no way notable.
As to the historical motors, by Davis and probably others, then I can't think of a good name offhand. It should be something though that indicates they combine a linear attraction as a prime mover (and it's not reciprocating because they're only single acting) and that also indicates they're generating continuous rotary motion (albeit somewhat jerky) by means of a ratchet or crank. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Your definition of "reciprocating" is excessively narrow. Per every online dictionary I checked, both of my print dictionaries, and our own article, Reciprocating motion is simply motion that moves back and forth in a straight line. "Double action" is not required. If the motor's prime mover—the armature in an electric motor—shows linear, back-and-forth motion, rather than circular movement, it's a reciprocating motor (or engine). Whether or not a crankshaft and flywheel are attached is also irrelevant. (Note that the double-acting steam engine illustrated at reciprocating motion has a crank and flywheel attached.) If you disagree, please find some references to support your position, don't just declare that your definition is the only one that matters. Jeh ( talk) 18:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I would also point out that your complaint about the "fun with magnets" motor, that it is not notable, is off point. Per WP:N, and in particular WP:N#NCONTENT, the notability requirement applies to article topics. It does not apply to content within an article. Individual examples of a thing do not have to be notable to be talked about in an article about the thing. Jeh ( talk) 18:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 00:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment as the article stands, it's still not making a claim for independent notability. If you can find and reference at least another and preferably several real-world, non historical/non toy applications, other than linear compressors which we already have a separate article for, for example (if you can reference it) in electric shavers, then in my opinion it would be notable. But right now, as the article stands, it still isn't achieving notability. GliderMaven ( talk) 20:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Why are history and toys excluded? Should we delete the articles Wimshurst machine and Model engine? Biscuittin ( talk) 20:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Wimshurst machines and model engines have lots of very good references, those at least are very notable; BUT THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC; Wimshurst machines are not reciprocating electric motors, they do not look like, work like or do anything else the same. You have been unable to establish sufficient notability for this topic. GliderMaven ( talk) 22:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Notable toys aren't excluded. Non-notable ones are. There is no secondary coverage of the motor that started this article and remains at its core. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Re. comment by Andy Dingley (19:41, 29 March 2015) - would you claim that a petrol engine is not a reciprocating engine because it is only single acting? Biscuittin ( talk) 08:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I have added a reference for electric shaver. Biscuittin ( talk) 08:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
User:Jeh and I have expanded the article. Please comment. Biscuittin ( talk) 10:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I didn't "expand" it. I replaced the "overview" section, which was completely unreferenced and also (I will say diplomatically) not written to Wikipedia's standards, with better-written prose (but still unreferenced). And I want to state for the record that I wore gloves, and took a long hot shower afterwards. I still don't think it deserves its own article but at least it isn't blathering about "cams" any longer. Jeh ( talk) 18:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
It's not the term I'd choose for it, but COMMONNAME has rather beaten me to it for that one. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
The article has been greatly improved. Is there now a consensus for keeping it? If not, please give your reasons. Biscuittin ( talk) 18:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Definitely delete - see my comment to SpinningSpark some days ago. The article is now trying to cover three unrelated types of motor in one article. Two of these don't belong together, one doesn't belong on WP. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Linear compressor, electric shaver and educational toy all use Reciprocating electric motors. Why do you say they are unrelated? Biscuittin ( talk) 20:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
That is a literal example of begging the question, thus a fallacy. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
What "three types"? They all involve magnetic fields generated by electric current (hence "electric") acting on an armature to move (hence "motor") it back and forth (hence "reciprocating"). Double-acting or not is irrelevant. Whether a crank and flywheel is attached to convert this to rotary motion is also irrelevant. Is the "electric motor" article invalid because it covers multiple types of electric motors? If we convert a rotary electric motor's motion to back-and-forth with a crank mechanism, does it cease to be a rotary motor? Nonsense. Jeh ( talk) 20:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
The two notable types here are firstly (the 1830s motors) using a linear actuator with a ratchet or crank in order to produce rotary motion; the modern example is using a reciprocating actuator to produce reciprocating motion alone. Those are conceptually two very different functions and just don't belong lumped into one article. I agree that those two, and only those two, could at least demonstrate notability. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I still don't find this topic independently notable. You can add the whole thing as a paragraph or two in linear motor, and you wouldn't lose anything, and you're done. The very few references to it seem very trivial, most electric razors don't work this way, and the ones that do, I wouldn't expect them to work any better, and nobody plays with these toys. The linear compressor certainly seems notable, but we have a separate article for that. GliderMaven ( talk) 21:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
The technology museum in Vienna (extremely good, by the way, I highly recommend a visit there if you're in that city) thought that the motor shown in the first photo was notable enough to be an exhibit. And remember that notability does not expire. However, I'd still support a merge to Linear motor - it seems incontrovertible to me that this is a type of linear motor. Jeh ( talk) 21:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Linear motors (simplifying slightly) use the Lorentz force between two fields to produce a continuous linear force over an appreciable distance spanning multiple pole pieces. They do not simply reciprocate around a single pole. They have nothing in common with these motors, based on reciprocating action and simple attraction from a single field. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
To Jeh: I don't think a reciprocating motor and a linear motor are quite the same thing. In a reciprocating motor the armature or coil moves back and forth over a short distance. In a linear motor (e.g. when used to power a train) the moving part moves over a long distance in a single direction. Biscuittin ( talk) 22:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
To Andy Dingley: I don't understand your claim of "begging the question". Please clarify. Biscuittin ( talk) 22:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I contend that two unrelated things do not belong in the same article. Your response is that because they are in the same article, they are the same thing and so belong in that same article. Such logic is circular. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
It sure looks to me like all the examples mentioned currently a) are motors, b) are electric, and c) exhibit reciprocating motion. They are in the article because they fit the definition. So again we ask you: HOW are they unrelated? You keep saying they're not; that strikes me as what we used to call on Usenet "proof by vigorous assertion".
Regarding Linear motor and someone's made-up requirement for "a long distance in a single direction": Linear motor says "A linear motor is an electric motor that has had its stator and rotor "unrolled" so that instead of producing a torque (rotation) it produces a linear force along its length." There is no requirement mentioned that the motor exceed any particular length of movement. It also says "One of the major uses of linear motors is for propelling the shuttle in looms. Linear motors have been used for sliding doors and various similar actuators." Sounds pretty "reciprocating" to me.
Meanwhile, nothing I can see requires a reciprocating motor to have just one field.
Say, isn't a conventional loadspeaker driver a "reciprocating electric motor"? How about the linear "voice coil" actuators in older disk drives? Jeh ( talk) 00:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Here is a suggestion that might satisfy both of you. Move the historic motor with the crank to Electric_motor#Early_motors move the toy motor to Toy#Types and move the others to Linear motor. Reciprocating electric motor can then become a disambiguation page. Biscuittin ( talk) 10:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
That would be the worst of all possible worlds.
How about this: Reciprocating electric motor becomes the modern shaver motors. These are well-defined, clearly notable and fit the title.
The early motors go to a new article (I'm out of ideas for it). They're notable and of some historical significance. The modern toy version becomes a labelled section at the end of that. Maybe a name that involves "rotative motor" (a term invented for the first steam engines 60 years earlier) maybe a name involving "crank motor" (although many used ratchets instead). Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I think Reciprocating electric motor best describes those with a crank because it is analogous to Reciprocating engine. Why can't the shaver motor go to Linear motor? Biscuittin ( talk) 12:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
To repeat, yet again, the piece you've either failed to read or were incapable of understanding, they are not linear motors, "Linear motors (simplifying slightly) use the Lorentz force between two fields to produce a continuous linear force over an appreciable distance spanning multiple pole pieces. They do not simply reciprocate around a single pole. They have nothing in common with these motors, based on reciprocating action and simple attraction from a single field." Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't consider that to be definitive. They have 'nothing' to do with each other??? What happens if you make a reciprocating motor with multiple poles, is it no longer a reciprocating motor, even if it still reciprocates??? It seems it would still be a reciprocating motor. Some electric clocks have fake pendulums that swing with a little coil to power it; presumably they're reciprocating motors?
Under the rules for disambiguation pages, you're supposed to have one of those if completely different things go by the same name, but in this case the term 'reciprocating electric motor' are all being taken in the same sense. GliderMaven ( talk) 15:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Andy Dingley: To repeat the part that you've either failed to read or else decided to just ignore, Linear motor says: "A linear motor is an electric motor that has had its stator and rotor "unrolled" so that instead of producing a torque (rotation) it produces a linear force along its length." There is no requirement mentioned of any minimum length of movement, nor of "multiple pole pieces".
Linear motor also says: "One of the major uses of linear motors is for propelling the shuttle in looms. Linear motors have been used for sliding doors and various similar actuators." Sounds pretty "reciprocating" to me.
In other words, the definition you're insisting on for "linear motor", which would exclude the content in REM from Linear motor, appears to me to be something you just WP:MADEUP, and furthermore is directly contradicted by content already in that article.
We're also still waiting for an explanation from you of why you think the examples in REM are not all "reciprocating electric motors", or do not all belong together. They are motors, they are electric, and they reciprocate. Your claim of a circular argument is absurd. The article begins with a definition (one that is obvious to anyone familiar with the language) and lists several things which, while different from each other in some ways, do all fit the definition. If you want to claim that one or more of these things doesn't belong in the article you're going to have to show either a RS-supported interpretation of the article title, or other RS-supported argument, showing how they don't fit the definition. n.b.: Your own idea of what a "reciprocating electric motor" is, or is not, doesn't count, no matter how many times you repeat it. Same for "linear motor". Jeh ( talk) 17:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
To answer another oft-repeated point of yours, I checked several different dictionaries and not one of them includes any notion of "double action" in the definition of "reciprocate", so that definition of yours appears to be WP:MADEUP as well. Jeh ( talk) 17:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
'modern shaver motors'? The vast majority of shavers just have a normal motor and drive a cam. The reciprocating motor seems to be just a gimmick so far as I can see; but that is a use for reciprocating motors. Loudspeakers also seem to be legitimately reciprocating motors, although they're never referred to as that (neither are the reciprocating heads on shavers though.) Still, I'm starting to think that there is indeed a topic here, basically, it's about linear motors used to generate reciprocating motion, but I think it should be merged with linear motors given the tactical situation of the current articles, and general lack of really good references. GliderMaven ( talk) 15:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't think we will ever get all parties to agree on this. I propose that the article be kept in its present form. Biscuittin ( talk) 17:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I think it's too small and the subject is not notable enough to be an article on its own. Rotary electric motors were developed decades before the early examples mentioned here, and these motors were largely a dead end except for a few very specialized uses. So a merge to Linear motor, with of course a redirect left here, seems appropriate. It is clearly a type of linear motor, and that article already includes examples of applications of reciprocating linear motors. Jeh ( talk) 17:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Need more opinions of uninvolved users-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter ( talk) 08:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Is this process supposed to reach a conclusion or is it just a talking shop? Biscuittin ( talk) 18:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Generally, debates are closed by an administrator after seven days and a decision is made then. However, this one has been relisted. That often happens when the administrator thinks that more comments are needed to reach a consensus. Have patience, it will happen. Spinning Spark 22:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reciprocating_electric_motor&oldid=1138287913"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig ( talk) 07:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Reciprocating electric motor

Reciprocating electric motor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, is not used for any practical application, references do not amount to it being notable in its own right. GliderMaven ( talk) 23:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA 1000 00:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Given how it is has moved back today [1], where the totally non-notable variant has been returned and the rest of the undivided article is still a mish-mash of linear reciprocating shaver motors and the 1830s semi-rotative engines, it's still a firm delete Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I am in process of expanding the article further. Please give me time to complete this before making a decision. Biscuittin ( talk) 10:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I have knocked the article into shape. It still needs further work but I think it can now stand on its own so I request that the deletion and merge tags be removed. It is not just about linear compressors, it is also about machines with crankshafts. Biscuittin ( talk) 12:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Putting a crank on a linear motor changes the electric motor itself in no way. GliderMaven ( talk) 16:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The original article probably was not worth saving, but the work by Biscuittin has made this a worthwhile page. The thing clearly exists, [2] despite claims to the contrary. The design shown here is identical the driving mechanism of old fashioned electric bells (although I have never heard them described as motors) which at one time were ubiquitous in telephones and also used as door bells. There are also book sources [3] that describe modern applications for such a motor. Spinning Spark 22:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I think this article has actually managed to get worse by its expansion.
When it started, it had a simple and clearly defined scope (the kid's demonstration motor). It was a clearly non-notable scope, but at least there was one.
Since then, it has turned into a text match across a Google search. Anything with the words "reciprocating" and "motor" has washed up in here. Doesn't matter that they're unrelated, if the words appear, they go in. That is no way to write an encyclopedic article on a defined topic!
The early motors use a reciprocating solenoid and armature to turn a rotative mechanism. Yet thrown into this same article are compressors and fretsaws that are purely reciprocating. All this in an article that doesn't even have section headings to split them. There's now a proposal at Talk:Electric motor to merge this into linear motor - a motor that provides continuous motion in one direction, without reciprocating.
Articles are written by producing some form of editorial narrative around a defined scope – not by throwing a few keywords into Google and assuming that everything with a match to them is about the same subject. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Andy Dingley's comments remind me of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. A Reciprocating electric motor can provide either linear motion or, with the addition of a crank, rotary motion, but both are Reciprocating electric motors. Biscuittin ( talk) 23:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply
A reciprocating engine does not directly produce linear motion (in the sense of linear motor) any more than it can directly produce rotary motion. In both cases an additional mechanical linkage is required to convert the motion. For instance, a crank for rotary motion, or a ratchet for linear motion. Spinning Spark 16:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Does a Reciprocating electric motor produce linear motion or rotary?
If even this simple definition can't be answered, it indicates that there is no valid scope for this article; it's merely a Google lookup for anything with the word "reciprocating". Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Rotary is round and round, linear is on and on, and reciprocating is back and forth. How is that not a simple definition? Spinning Spark 17:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
That defines the terms, but what does the motor do?
If this article ends up stating "Reciprocating motors go either round and round or back and forth" (as it effectively does at present) that's a strong indication that the claimed scope is invalid and is no more than a trivial text coupling between motors of different concepts. Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm afraid this is standard Andy Dingley practice, which I have encountered many times. He tries to confuse us, in the hope that we will get bored and go away. Biscuittin ( talk) 18:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
That shows that the text string "Reciprocating+electric+motor" appears in several sources. However articles are about concepts, not about strings of text. Do these texts refer to the same concept? Is that concept described here?
This article has been expanded during the AfD. It started out around one concept (which couldn't demonstrate WP:N). It has since expanded to include the early Davis motors (of historical note and probably deserving an article) It has also gone in the direction suggested by Spinning Spark of the non-rotating electric shaver motor. That can demonstrate notability too.
The problem with this article is that it just lumps all three in together. They do not belong together, certainly not when not even described separately. Although the text "Reciprocating+electric+motor" has been used to describe all three, they have little in common beyond the "electric motor" aspect. Their function, design principle, physical principle, construction and direction of delivering power are all far too different to belong in one article. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
At Talk:electric motor Andy Dingley wrote: "There is no more any such thing as a "reciprocating electric motor" than there is a "wiggly springy magnet motor". I am one of many has demolished this claim so Mr Dingley has changed tack and is now attacking the article because it "lumps three things together". The article Electric motor lumps many different types of motor together so would Mr Dingley like to delete this article as well? Biscuittin ( talk) 14:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
That was in reference to the original article, when its scope applied only to the Fun With Magnets motor and the article treated it as if a reciprocating solenoid mechanism driving a cam was a credible way to build a rotating motor.
To stretch this article to make reciprocating motors look like a credible topic you've had to stretch it to also include electric shaver motors that are reciprocating, but don't even try to produce rotary motion. They might belong in their own article, but it makes no sense to bundle both types up together. Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Are you saying that a reciprocating electric motor has to produce rotary motion? Is a linear motor not a motor because it does not produce rotary motion? Biscuittin ( talk) 22:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
A "motor" can wiggle any way that it wants to. However it's a pretty big distinction between rotary and linear motion, or between continuous and back-and-forth motion. This article has now grown to include three completely separate types of motor (i.e. three distinct topics) where two are continuous and rotary and one is linear and intermittent. All of no more basis than including the word "reciprocating" in a Google hit. That is no way to define an article#s scope. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
So do you want me to split it into three separate articles? Biscuittin ( talk) 22:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
If so, please suggest names for them because I'm sure you won't like the names I give them. Biscuittin ( talk) 22:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Two of those topics would at least be coherent and notable. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Which two, and what names do you suggest? Biscuittin ( talk) 23:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Well Reciprocating electric motor works for me, if applied to the electric shaver motors that are linear, back-and-forth motion directly generated from a coil and pole piece acting against a spring. Either AC or AC/DC with interrupter points. Those are commonplace, easily WP:Notable and match the name.
The point is, as this AfD was originally raised for, is to get rid of the coverage of the Fun With Magnets motor that is in no way notable.
As to the historical motors, by Davis and probably others, then I can't think of a good name offhand. It should be something though that indicates they combine a linear attraction as a prime mover (and it's not reciprocating because they're only single acting) and that also indicates they're generating continuous rotary motion (albeit somewhat jerky) by means of a ratchet or crank. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Your definition of "reciprocating" is excessively narrow. Per every online dictionary I checked, both of my print dictionaries, and our own article, Reciprocating motion is simply motion that moves back and forth in a straight line. "Double action" is not required. If the motor's prime mover—the armature in an electric motor—shows linear, back-and-forth motion, rather than circular movement, it's a reciprocating motor (or engine). Whether or not a crankshaft and flywheel are attached is also irrelevant. (Note that the double-acting steam engine illustrated at reciprocating motion has a crank and flywheel attached.) If you disagree, please find some references to support your position, don't just declare that your definition is the only one that matters. Jeh ( talk) 18:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I would also point out that your complaint about the "fun with magnets" motor, that it is not notable, is off point. Per WP:N, and in particular WP:N#NCONTENT, the notability requirement applies to article topics. It does not apply to content within an article. Individual examples of a thing do not have to be notable to be talked about in an article about the thing. Jeh ( talk) 18:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 00:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment as the article stands, it's still not making a claim for independent notability. If you can find and reference at least another and preferably several real-world, non historical/non toy applications, other than linear compressors which we already have a separate article for, for example (if you can reference it) in electric shavers, then in my opinion it would be notable. But right now, as the article stands, it still isn't achieving notability. GliderMaven ( talk) 20:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Why are history and toys excluded? Should we delete the articles Wimshurst machine and Model engine? Biscuittin ( talk) 20:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Wimshurst machines and model engines have lots of very good references, those at least are very notable; BUT THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC; Wimshurst machines are not reciprocating electric motors, they do not look like, work like or do anything else the same. You have been unable to establish sufficient notability for this topic. GliderMaven ( talk) 22:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Notable toys aren't excluded. Non-notable ones are. There is no secondary coverage of the motor that started this article and remains at its core. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Re. comment by Andy Dingley (19:41, 29 March 2015) - would you claim that a petrol engine is not a reciprocating engine because it is only single acting? Biscuittin ( talk) 08:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I have added a reference for electric shaver. Biscuittin ( talk) 08:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
User:Jeh and I have expanded the article. Please comment. Biscuittin ( talk) 10:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I didn't "expand" it. I replaced the "overview" section, which was completely unreferenced and also (I will say diplomatically) not written to Wikipedia's standards, with better-written prose (but still unreferenced). And I want to state for the record that I wore gloves, and took a long hot shower afterwards. I still don't think it deserves its own article but at least it isn't blathering about "cams" any longer. Jeh ( talk) 18:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
It's not the term I'd choose for it, but COMMONNAME has rather beaten me to it for that one. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
The article has been greatly improved. Is there now a consensus for keeping it? If not, please give your reasons. Biscuittin ( talk) 18:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Definitely delete - see my comment to SpinningSpark some days ago. The article is now trying to cover three unrelated types of motor in one article. Two of these don't belong together, one doesn't belong on WP. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Linear compressor, electric shaver and educational toy all use Reciprocating electric motors. Why do you say they are unrelated? Biscuittin ( talk) 20:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
That is a literal example of begging the question, thus a fallacy. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
What "three types"? They all involve magnetic fields generated by electric current (hence "electric") acting on an armature to move (hence "motor") it back and forth (hence "reciprocating"). Double-acting or not is irrelevant. Whether a crank and flywheel is attached to convert this to rotary motion is also irrelevant. Is the "electric motor" article invalid because it covers multiple types of electric motors? If we convert a rotary electric motor's motion to back-and-forth with a crank mechanism, does it cease to be a rotary motor? Nonsense. Jeh ( talk) 20:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
The two notable types here are firstly (the 1830s motors) using a linear actuator with a ratchet or crank in order to produce rotary motion; the modern example is using a reciprocating actuator to produce reciprocating motion alone. Those are conceptually two very different functions and just don't belong lumped into one article. I agree that those two, and only those two, could at least demonstrate notability. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I still don't find this topic independently notable. You can add the whole thing as a paragraph or two in linear motor, and you wouldn't lose anything, and you're done. The very few references to it seem very trivial, most electric razors don't work this way, and the ones that do, I wouldn't expect them to work any better, and nobody plays with these toys. The linear compressor certainly seems notable, but we have a separate article for that. GliderMaven ( talk) 21:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
The technology museum in Vienna (extremely good, by the way, I highly recommend a visit there if you're in that city) thought that the motor shown in the first photo was notable enough to be an exhibit. And remember that notability does not expire. However, I'd still support a merge to Linear motor - it seems incontrovertible to me that this is a type of linear motor. Jeh ( talk) 21:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Linear motors (simplifying slightly) use the Lorentz force between two fields to produce a continuous linear force over an appreciable distance spanning multiple pole pieces. They do not simply reciprocate around a single pole. They have nothing in common with these motors, based on reciprocating action and simple attraction from a single field. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
To Jeh: I don't think a reciprocating motor and a linear motor are quite the same thing. In a reciprocating motor the armature or coil moves back and forth over a short distance. In a linear motor (e.g. when used to power a train) the moving part moves over a long distance in a single direction. Biscuittin ( talk) 22:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
To Andy Dingley: I don't understand your claim of "begging the question". Please clarify. Biscuittin ( talk) 22:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I contend that two unrelated things do not belong in the same article. Your response is that because they are in the same article, they are the same thing and so belong in that same article. Such logic is circular. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
It sure looks to me like all the examples mentioned currently a) are motors, b) are electric, and c) exhibit reciprocating motion. They are in the article because they fit the definition. So again we ask you: HOW are they unrelated? You keep saying they're not; that strikes me as what we used to call on Usenet "proof by vigorous assertion".
Regarding Linear motor and someone's made-up requirement for "a long distance in a single direction": Linear motor says "A linear motor is an electric motor that has had its stator and rotor "unrolled" so that instead of producing a torque (rotation) it produces a linear force along its length." There is no requirement mentioned that the motor exceed any particular length of movement. It also says "One of the major uses of linear motors is for propelling the shuttle in looms. Linear motors have been used for sliding doors and various similar actuators." Sounds pretty "reciprocating" to me.
Meanwhile, nothing I can see requires a reciprocating motor to have just one field.
Say, isn't a conventional loadspeaker driver a "reciprocating electric motor"? How about the linear "voice coil" actuators in older disk drives? Jeh ( talk) 00:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Here is a suggestion that might satisfy both of you. Move the historic motor with the crank to Electric_motor#Early_motors move the toy motor to Toy#Types and move the others to Linear motor. Reciprocating electric motor can then become a disambiguation page. Biscuittin ( talk) 10:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
That would be the worst of all possible worlds.
How about this: Reciprocating electric motor becomes the modern shaver motors. These are well-defined, clearly notable and fit the title.
The early motors go to a new article (I'm out of ideas for it). They're notable and of some historical significance. The modern toy version becomes a labelled section at the end of that. Maybe a name that involves "rotative motor" (a term invented for the first steam engines 60 years earlier) maybe a name involving "crank motor" (although many used ratchets instead). Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I think Reciprocating electric motor best describes those with a crank because it is analogous to Reciprocating engine. Why can't the shaver motor go to Linear motor? Biscuittin ( talk) 12:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
To repeat, yet again, the piece you've either failed to read or were incapable of understanding, they are not linear motors, "Linear motors (simplifying slightly) use the Lorentz force between two fields to produce a continuous linear force over an appreciable distance spanning multiple pole pieces. They do not simply reciprocate around a single pole. They have nothing in common with these motors, based on reciprocating action and simple attraction from a single field." Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't consider that to be definitive. They have 'nothing' to do with each other??? What happens if you make a reciprocating motor with multiple poles, is it no longer a reciprocating motor, even if it still reciprocates??? It seems it would still be a reciprocating motor. Some electric clocks have fake pendulums that swing with a little coil to power it; presumably they're reciprocating motors?
Under the rules for disambiguation pages, you're supposed to have one of those if completely different things go by the same name, but in this case the term 'reciprocating electric motor' are all being taken in the same sense. GliderMaven ( talk) 15:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Andy Dingley: To repeat the part that you've either failed to read or else decided to just ignore, Linear motor says: "A linear motor is an electric motor that has had its stator and rotor "unrolled" so that instead of producing a torque (rotation) it produces a linear force along its length." There is no requirement mentioned of any minimum length of movement, nor of "multiple pole pieces".
Linear motor also says: "One of the major uses of linear motors is for propelling the shuttle in looms. Linear motors have been used for sliding doors and various similar actuators." Sounds pretty "reciprocating" to me.
In other words, the definition you're insisting on for "linear motor", which would exclude the content in REM from Linear motor, appears to me to be something you just WP:MADEUP, and furthermore is directly contradicted by content already in that article.
We're also still waiting for an explanation from you of why you think the examples in REM are not all "reciprocating electric motors", or do not all belong together. They are motors, they are electric, and they reciprocate. Your claim of a circular argument is absurd. The article begins with a definition (one that is obvious to anyone familiar with the language) and lists several things which, while different from each other in some ways, do all fit the definition. If you want to claim that one or more of these things doesn't belong in the article you're going to have to show either a RS-supported interpretation of the article title, or other RS-supported argument, showing how they don't fit the definition. n.b.: Your own idea of what a "reciprocating electric motor" is, or is not, doesn't count, no matter how many times you repeat it. Same for "linear motor". Jeh ( talk) 17:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
To answer another oft-repeated point of yours, I checked several different dictionaries and not one of them includes any notion of "double action" in the definition of "reciprocate", so that definition of yours appears to be WP:MADEUP as well. Jeh ( talk) 17:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
'modern shaver motors'? The vast majority of shavers just have a normal motor and drive a cam. The reciprocating motor seems to be just a gimmick so far as I can see; but that is a use for reciprocating motors. Loudspeakers also seem to be legitimately reciprocating motors, although they're never referred to as that (neither are the reciprocating heads on shavers though.) Still, I'm starting to think that there is indeed a topic here, basically, it's about linear motors used to generate reciprocating motion, but I think it should be merged with linear motors given the tactical situation of the current articles, and general lack of really good references. GliderMaven ( talk) 15:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't think we will ever get all parties to agree on this. I propose that the article be kept in its present form. Biscuittin ( talk) 17:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I think it's too small and the subject is not notable enough to be an article on its own. Rotary electric motors were developed decades before the early examples mentioned here, and these motors were largely a dead end except for a few very specialized uses. So a merge to Linear motor, with of course a redirect left here, seems appropriate. It is clearly a type of linear motor, and that article already includes examples of applications of reciprocating linear motors. Jeh ( talk) 17:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Need more opinions of uninvolved users-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter ( talk) 08:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Is this process supposed to reach a conclusion or is it just a talking shop? Biscuittin ( talk) 18:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Generally, debates are closed by an administrator after seven days and a decision is made then. However, this one has been relisted. That often happens when the administrator thinks that more comments are needed to reach a consensus. Have patience, it will happen. Spinning Spark 22:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reciprocating_electric_motor&oldid=1138287913"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE