ot: wikipedia at its finest. not.

My suggestion is that you try to compromise and call it "a one-piece insulator of ceramic material." My guess is that you won't do that.

um, alumina /is/ a ceramic. and just like you don't make car bodies out of copper or lead, the exact type of ceramic is crucial because it determines its mechanical, thermal and electrical properties. porcelain doesn't have thermal or mechanical shock resistance like sintered alumina does. it can't be run at the same temperatures either. other than some porcelains being white, there's really nothing to confuse anyone who can be bothered to read.

my guess is that you won't do that.

Welcome to Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia any cabal of pizza delivery guys, frustrated wannabe academicians with an agenda and half-cocked college kids can edit.

They actually have a "tenet" that says "verifiability, not truth". If it shows up in what gets deemed as a "reliable" source, it can be included, even if it's utter horseshit. I'm sure you've seen the nonsense that often gets into articles.

They have various review boards, arbitration committees and other hifalutin' sounding "positions" one can aspire to. What mostly qualifies one to be an administrator there is having an absurd amount of time to devote to it and willingness to become part of the Wikiborg hivemind that seems to permeate the site.

There's a reason universities frequently don't allow Wikipedia to be listed as a reference.

I bothered to read. A compromise is something that both sides can agree on. What's wrong with agreeing to call it a "ceramic?" As you say, alumina is a ceramic. So what if you don't get to call it exactly what you want? Don't be so whiny. That's what a compromise is.

You guessed wrong - again.

It's the same thing as official academia if one thinks about it a little. Just without the fancy degrees and piles of research money.

And everything else. Anyone who relies solely on any single source deserves what is garnered. Wikipedia is an excellent source when utilized as a research tool and lead.

wrong

particularly so, then.

wrong again.

wrong yet again.

"After changes upon changes we are more or less the same; after changes we are more or less the same."-PS

Your declarations tell me you believe in the illusions of authority.

Much of what goes on in academia is funded and approved if and only if it is politically acceptable by the group who has power. Especially with government funding. Dive into that world a little bit and it quickly becomes evident.

People's careers are invested in things being a certain way. In certain beliefs, ideas, etc. In wikipedia we see people behaving a certain way just for bragging rights. What do you think they do when their income, career, and/or reputation is threatened?

I see misinformation on the Wiki all the time as well as the newspapers and internet and Usenet. That's the breaks. The best you can do is to educate yourself the best you can. The OP might be technically right but I couldn't care less about his "predicament." As you say, welcome to Wikipedia.

*********** Academics often do the same sort of thing. "Publishing" takes precedence, and "one-upmanship" often develops between schools or professors leading to work and money being exhausted for trivial pursuits.

It is true that when private money is invested through academic institutions, the money dictates the path.

So does the government money.

I always call it wiki wiki woo woo. Now my couch buddy doggy is barking because I said wiki wiki woo woo. cuhulin

The basic problem is wikipedia allows anyone to define anything or change anything. Competance, knowledge, common sense do not enter into it. It is amazing tha it contains any correct information.

I think you are right about this.

It's a source. Whether what's there is actually valid is a complete crapshoot. I've seen too much outright bs on there to categorize it as "excellent". Seen plenty of examples of citation of a source where the source doesn't say what ends up in the article - things taken out of context and other outright misrepresentation of what's said in the cited source.

I saw an article outside of Wikipedia by one editor who's obsessed with a particular author they don't like. Though they apparently thought they were demonstrating their keen insight, the article was a glaring testament to their lack of even a rudimentary grasp of the works of their object of derision - yet this person is one of the most active editors on the Wikipedia article.

The one Wikipedia administrator whose real world ID I became aware of

- someone with a long history of pissing people off with his imperious attitude, who used to go on about how he "believed in the project" etc. is currently doing a stretch in the pen for child molestation.

From

"Since the bottom of the insulator projects into the combustion chamber, high purity alumina with superior heat-proof characteristic, mechanical strength, excellent insulation and thermal conductivity at high temperature, etc. is used."

At least Denso thinks it is basic knowledge that the insulator is high purity alumina.

Ed

>

It is also basic knowledge that the insulator is made of porcelain. Porcelain is different name that doesn't tell you much about the exact composition, but refers more to the manufacturing process.

David Dunbar Buick (he also founded/started his own auto company, Buick) invented/developed the process of bonding porcelain to iron. Thank You Mr.Buick. cuhulin

>>

if you actually read that cite, you'll see that the word "porcelain" is application-specific, i.e. microwave transmitter insulators. those things are usually called "porcelains", much like some people refer to spa baths as "jacuzzi's", even though they're not made by that manufacturer.

"porcelain", the ceramic, is known in the industry as a kaolin [aluminum silicate] mix. read a little more here:

"wikiborg hivemind" is a dead-on-target description. i was thinking along the lines of "mental pygmy recreational zone", but i think yours is better.