![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2nd July or 5th July -> [1]? --MacRusgail 20:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC) I have heard of a theoretical construct called a "Rankine disk". Having to do with marine propeller efficiencies. I'm not positive that this is the same rankine, but the name is the same, and the approximate time matches my recollection.
This page is getting much better by the day, but there are still a number of sections that need work. Unfortunately I don't have the expertise in all the necessary areas, but I would hope that eventually we can raise this to feature article status, if not on the front page, then certainly on the Scotland portal.--MacRusgail 15:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
See Talk:Christian_Otto_Mohr#Rankine —DIV (128.250.204.118 06:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
I have added more info on Rankine's early work on fatigue but more could be added here. Any volunteers?Peterlewis (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
There is an sketch image of Rankine at s:Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 12.djvu/140 which someone may wish to screen capture. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This page has literally almost NO citations. This needs to be fixed. Spirit469 (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The sentence "Like other thermodynamic cycles, the maximum efficiency of the Rankine cycle is given by calculating the maximum efficiency of the Carnot cycle" is unsound.
Thermodynamics would simply say that the efficiency of a Rankine engine cannot be better than that of an ideal Carnot engine operating with the extreme (hotest and coldest) temperatures of the Rankine engine. Notice the difference.
The maximum efficiency of the Rankine cycle can be calculated upon fair, simple assumptions on the working fluid. Albeit it is always a lesser quantity, it has nothing to do with the efficiency of a Carnot engine.
I would simply dropout the quotation.
Etaoin Shdrlu (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The title of this page is currently “William John Macquorn Rankine”. Using four names instead of two conflicts with Wikipedia’s naming conventions for people at WP:NCP and WP:COMMONNAME. There is no obvious problem with articles about multiple people named William Rankine so I propose the title of the article should be changed to “William Rankine” in accordance with WP:NCP and WP:COMMONNAME. There is an existing redirect to “William Rankine”, and after the change I am proposing, the title “William John Macquorn Rankine” will remain as a redirect. Dolphin (t) 22:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
ok, I did some (superficial) research on this. It isn't immediately clear which should be the "most common name" under WP:NAME. I used the google book searches
"macquorn rankine" -"john macquorn" "william rankine"
google books no longer gives a reliable estimate on the number of hits, but paging through the result, it appears that these two searches both give of the order of 200 hits in printed publications. It appears that "William Rankine" is the most frequently used short name, and "Macquorn Rankine" is used some time, but the 200 results mentioned also include instances of "W. J. Rankine" and "William J. Macquorn Rankine". Some publications have hyphenated "Macquorn-Rankine", this is either a mistake, or else Macquorn isn't really a third given name but some sort of clan name?
It appears that Rankine, when not using the full "William John Macquorn Rankine", is most often referred to as either "W. J. Rankine", or "W. J. Macquorn Rankine", or "William Rankine", followed by "William J. Macquorn Rankine" and "Macquorn Rankine"/"Macquorn-Rankine". The "Life" section talks about young "William", so if the given name in the article title is changed from William to Macquorn, I suggest this would also need to be adjusted. --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)