Talk:High-voltage transformer fire barriers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inline citations[edit]

If someone could please help convert the external hyperlinks now embedded in the body of the article into a reference list, that would be appreciated.--Achim Hering (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

This seems to be a notable subject for an article but strays way too far from an encyclopedic summary of the subject. The article is almost entirely about testing recommendations for these barriers, going into intricate detail of this for North America. It's a very narrow scope for the topic (could you imagine if as much space was given for the safety standards in other countries?). And at no point does it really describe what the barriers are, what they are made of, their history, or the nature of transformer fires. So I feel it could use both a reduction of the present material and an expansion to better suit the scope of the topic. Some other notes:

  • Captions should be succinct (see MOS:CAPTION). Additional text should be worked into the prose or onto the image file's page.
  • Bing or Google search results cannot be used as a reference (see Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers).
  • There were a lot of references to Youtube videos; better sources could be used and these moved to the External links section.
  • Links to commons go in the last section of the article (External links) per Template:Commons category

I commented-out some material to give editors a chance to move it as appropriate. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the effort. I agree with your analysis. Also there is a previous discussion about this article on my talk page you may find interesting. --Ita140188 (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I could make a small recommendation: Please read the cited documents, such as NFPA 850, ASTM E119, NFPA 251, CAN/ULC-S101, UL 263? Usually criticism arises from users who have not troubled themselves to read these important documents, let alone having experienced or designed any of the testing. For example, ASTM International is an international standards writing organization, as is UL, which includes ULC and NFPA. Standards from these organisations are used worldwide. For example, if you were active in the field, you would inherently know that fireproofing on the oil sector, be it in the Middle East, Far East or North America, rely on the use of UL1709 testing. It is not just American or North American, it is the gold standard in this and it is apt, considering the fuel for the fire. Also, Reidgreg (talk, you say that the document does not tell you what the barriers are made of. Actually it does, as do the pictures on Commons, of which there are quite a few. People use cast concrete, concrete block, which are discussed in here, ad well as critically important issues concerning those, such as test conditioning, which is not mirrored outdoors, meaning the tests supporting those are typically inapplicable because test samples that are totally wet, such as they may be from rain, would quickly spall into oblivion in a fire, as well as proprietary methods, of which there are two sets of pictures. One uses CAC as a binder, and the other one is a panel. You can lament the lack of use of references to these products, but if thy were mentioned and linked here in any sort of prominent way, then this would be considered advertising and then someone ELSE would revert that. Using inline citations, two proprietary products are referenced here, but not such as to create the appearance of hidden advertising. One such example is a California product, which was exposed at the Sinatra station on the strip in Las Vegas. Another is a panel product, that is the subject of a complaint. There are two proprietary concrete products that one can find. They differ largely from the other panels in the realm. Also, your edit had a criticism section, where the meaning of a statement was misunderstood and then confused more. That is less likely to happen if you read the cited documents - not some quick link online, but purchase, download and read the entire standards. Some of your changes were not bad and others made false changes, such as saying that mentioning radiated temperatures at subjective distances would actually be better. Really? And what would that subjective distance be then? Any recommendations? What external heat can all models of transformers from Siemens, ABB and GE take from a fire emanating from adjacent transformers? That is not known or tested but states by yourself as being better. Had you read E119, for example, and focused on the conditions of acceptance for non-loadbearing walls, then would have known better. Now, why is that a condition of acceptance for wall fire test standards the world over? Because you don't want heat to come through to the protected area. That is why NFPA 850 agreed with this too. The statement is in there because you have some vendors who cannot meet this requirement at the desired price, who then state how much heat goes through their single sheet panel systems to suggest that this really does not matter. But in this, they disagree with consensus methodology decades old and international. It is also why you cannot earn a UL listing, if you fail the thermal requirement. Please read the cited documents and ask before making changes. There are reasons for the contents. If you have counterarguments, by all means, that can be discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achim Hering (talk • contribs) 21:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read the discussion at Old revision of User talk:Ita140188 and am amazed at the patience of some editors. I'm going to first address some of the issues raised there.
@Achim Hering: Also, who are you to judge whether detail is excessive?
If you googled me, you would answer your own question. I began working in passive fire protection in 1981 and have done countless fire tests, product designs, post-mortems following fire tests, and understand the topic on a molecular and quantum level. I can tell when I see edits from people who have never once designed or run any fire testing whatsoever, whether they know the subject or not. It is absolutely my wheelhouse. That does not mean I am closed to input, but I know when I see BS and I call it.--Achim Hering (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 On Wikipedia, all editors are considered equal.  However, I would note that User:Ita140188 is a trusted member of the Wikipedia community with (by one metric) about 40× more editing experience than you.
  • That does not impress me in the remotest. It means someone has a lot of time on his or her hands perhaps. When edits show absolutely clear signs of fundamental lack of understanding of the topic, it is then completely obvious to take such edits with a grain of salt. Similarly, if I edit something outside of my wheelhouse, I make sure that I am on solid ground. Take the example of the moving of one of my sentences concerning measuring radiated heat from a fire test sample. The editor stated his conclusion that this would be more realistic in terms of exposure risks to adjacent transformers - absent any data concerning the ability of a multitude of transformer models and manufacturers to be able to deal with incoming heat from a fire - against a backdrop of a very aged fleet of transformers, very often far past the warranty period, and demonstrably without active monitoring sensors. Think about that logically, to just take one such example. That is such utter technical nonsense - even from someone who has edited a lot of copy on Wikipedia. A lot of copy editing on Wikipedia plus 10 cents won't buy you a cup of coffee.--Achim Hering (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be excessive if the countermeasure described were regulated via building codes. Then one would not need such detail. The fact of the matter is, that sellers and users of these walls are operating in an unregulated environment. Think about that for a second from the perspective of national security concerning the power grid of a country. Zero mandatory regulations leads to issues, which are resolvable given the information presented. It seems that your argument is that this is vital information and Wikipedia should disseminate it because it is unregulated. I'm afraid that is not Wikipedia's function, and is covered under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and gives concise summaries of notable subjects. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, technical manual, guidebook, textbook, or directory.
  • Yes, and I keep running up against that. Let me put it to you this way, I fundamentally disagree with a lot of stuff in terms of how Wikipedia is run, and how anonymous parties develop quite the attitude to delete good content on the basis of these rules and how some of them conglomerate to beat up on folks on here while avoiding answers to direct questions. The fact of the matter is that some articles are rather deep and there are times when it is really useful to have deep content. And when I look into a matter I am not as familiar with and I don't want all the depth, it is up to me whether I glance or skip through or take the time to read it.--Achim Hering (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the sections where NFPA 850 is the subject, that document itself is considered a primary source. The document can be used in referencing to itself, but that does not demonstrate the notability of that information. You need a reliable secondary source to demonstrate that the information is notable enough for inclusion in an article. That is the benchmark which helps us determine what is trivial and what is not.
  • To me it is much simpler logic. It is the only guidance document in the realm. Further, people vendors and buyers are making references to it. If you work in the field, it is absolute bedrock. From it flow other documents. You also called something "NFPA 850 testing". That was wrong. You don't test to NFPA 850, which you would have known as a consequence of reading it by the way. 850 tells you what test procedures to test to, which results of conditions of acceptance.--Achim Hering (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My primary role on Wikipedia for the past two years has been copy editing (this is my third major revert over that period). Unless the article is entirely unintelligible, I can do this without referring to the sources. The copy editing that I did covered basically four things:
  • Hold it, in so doing, you made substantial technical errors. So before going on about that, I challenge your premise. Had you read and understood the reference document, you would not have made such errors.--Achim Hering (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trimming unsourced trivial details as above. Unsourced and insufficiently sourced material can be removed by any editor at any time.
  • I don't struggle with that. My point is this: Know what you are talking about before editing. I accept the fact that anybody can edit. But when you make errors, those may be challenged based on facts.--Achim Hering (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Also summarizing information for conciseness.
  • Trimming redundant material. Often the same information was repeated in different sections. In some cases I altered the layout to find logical places to gather fragmented information.
  • Again, I don't struggle with that. Like I wrote, I liked some of what you did. But it became difficult to deal with on account of the technical errors.--Achim Hering (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tone, so that it read more like an encyclopedia article instead of a technical manual (see WP:NOTMANUAL).
  • That may be an excellent point. It is also difficult to deal with because passive fire protection matters also deal with the law. When one works within those confines, one inherently learns to be as specific as possible. This is why building codes read a certain way, as do test standards. What you see in these documents is often fought over amongst different parties - sometimes quite vehemently. What remains is often a compromise and is often aimed at preventing ethically challenged parties from gaming the system, which is a big problem in the realm, with potentially serious consequences. You could argue about rock music or style trends in pottery, for example, and there are folks deeply invested in such matters, but when passive fire protection is messed with, it can cost lives and treasure. The knowledge of this invariably leads to a certain use of language, which may not be very encyclopedic, say to someone who edits articles on "popular" topics with the same zeal as articles on stuff that affects lives and treasure, but it comes with the territory.--Achim Hering (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compliance with our Manual of Style including captions, excessive bold, acronyms, capitalization, spaces and punctuation at references, overlinking, section headings and external links. In its current state, it simply doesn't look like a Wikipedia article.
  • Like I said, I am open to such clerical matters. But when edits contain fundamental technical errors, it becomes difficult to unravel. I do take suggestions and go back and work on things. It is also a matters of time available.--Achim Hering (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The jarring styles and run-on paragraphs can be difficult to read, and the excessive detail and redundancies can make it difficult for the reader to find the more important information. The maintenance tags brought my attention to the article and, frankly, if you hold expertise in such high regard I think you could be a little more open and constructive when experts on Wikipedia volunteer their time to improve the article.
  • When edits are not wholesale deletions of technical facts or technical distortions, I don't object. In fact, I have thanked people for their edits. Like I said, I liked some of your stuff but it became too unwieldy to edit on account of the technical issues. As far as "expertise", I yield the point that you don't need my 37 years in the realm to have stuff to contribute. But I object when people don't take the time to find out for themselves what the subject is about. Read the reference document! Is that REALLY too much to ask? You did not have to find out what the document is. It
Usually criticism arises from users who have not troubled themselves to read these important documents, let alone having experienced or designed any of the testing. Accepting that these are international standards (being used in both Canada and the United States makes them so), the article should still have more global coverage. Expansion about testing in France and French-influenced countries, for example. Also, I doubt that the legal repercussions mentioned (Competition Act, Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations) apply outside of North America, and the examples of shootings are also all from North America. As for not "having experienced or designed any of the testing", no Wikipedia editors are held to such standards. Wikipedia articles are intended to be encyclopedic summaries for a general readership. Specialized knowledge should not be required; in fact, interpretation of sources with specialized knowledge is considered WP:original research, and having first-hand involvement with the subject can make it difficult for an editor to be objective and could bring an editor into danger of having a WP:conflict of interest.
  • That's why I put in a lot of links and inline citations. Again, I understand that anybody can edit. But if removing or reverting or changing content, I don't see why one would do that without having researched the topic, with a little more than click here or click there and perhaps sniff a headline. I can tell when someone edits and has absolutely no clue - by the demonstrable errors. Would I edit the finer points in an article about the Kardashians? No. Why not, apart from the fact that I have no interest in anything they do or have to say, I would consider it my duty to know what I am talking about by checking sources and being on very solid ground. One of the biggest criticisms against Wikipedia, that I have personally encountered in conversations with people in my life, is that "anybody can edit", which roughly translates to that vested interests as well as just plain morons can author and edit. Typically, this is the point where people stop paying attention and write the whole thing off as BS, not to be taken seriously, plus judgment against those who do. The fact of the matter is that content often is subject to debate and that is OK by me. There are things about the whole project that I find absolutely abhorrent. And I am not troubled in the remotest that my views, for all of which I have reasons, don't conform with the rules agreed upon on here. The majority is often quite wrong. And the majority of anonymous users does not impress me one little bit. My use of specific references, such as the Canadian Competition Act is purposely specific. So what if that is what applies in Canada and Antitrust legislation applies in the US. And the EU also has similar legislation. In fact, you will find similarities concerning unfair trade practices in multiple countries. When citing an example, it gets specific. If, for example, an editor from Switzerland wanted to cite similar legislation that covers the same item, in Switzerland, then that would be a useful edit, to me, regardless of whether the Swiss legislation agreed or disagreed with that from Canada or the US. Just because an article mentions a specific piece of legislation, that does not prevent someone from adding to it and making it more international that way. That is why it is useful, I believe, to be specific. It would be counterproductive to make sweeping statements about what is legal or illegal in multiple countries, without actually looking that up.--Achim Hering (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the document does not tell you what the barriers are made of. Actually it does, as do the pictures on Commons, of which there are quite a few. People use cast concrete, concrete block, which are discussed in here Actually, no, I don't believe that it does. It says, for example, that concrete is effective, and discusses this at length (as you do above), but doesn't say that it's actually used anywhere.
  • Case in point for my recommendation to read NFPA 850. It even includes reference to calculations concerning concrete thickness and make-up. Also, pictures on Commons are very clearly of cast concrete as well as precast concrete. Expand the pix and you will see that. How can you say that it is not used anywhere when Commons pictures show concrete barriers with clear identifications of the substations?--Achim Hering (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
your edit had a criticism section, where the meaning of a statement was misunderstood and then confused more. [...] Some of your changes were not bad and others made false changes, such as saying that mentioning radiated temperatures at subjective distances would actually be better. Okay. Would you like to put some of the "not bad" changes back in, or should I guess what they might be? I moved the 'criticism' information because I felt that it didn't fit where it was, and grouping the statements together made more sense to me. I don not use the word "better" in Wikipedia's voice, and have no opinion on the validity of the statements. Both statements were unreferenced, so there was nothing for me to check or verify as I summarized. If you would rather remove them from the article, I can accept that.
  • I can go over it to remove redundancies for a start. Some of it is repetitive. an occupational hazard.--Achim Hering (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the article should be moved to NFPA 850 since so much of it seems to be about that? As Ita140188 mentioned, the narrower scope might allow for more detail, but you would have to demonstrate notability.
  • NFPA 850 does not exist as an article. I also would not presume to author one or recommend that anyone does. It would be very difficult to avoid copyright issues. I believe that if anyone has such an interest, they can join NFPA and try to get on that committee, which is pretty full, from what I understand. But anyone can offer edits, which the committee then adjudicates. The section about NFPA 850 is actually a very small one. 850 covers a lot more than just transformer fire barriers. How that relates to the subject at issue, is what is in here.--Achim Hering (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article has many MOS problems and excessive detail. These issues can be addressed without intimate knowledge of the sources. Would you have any objections to MOS cleanup?
Do you have any objection to removing the paragraph about STANAG 4569, which seems to be about armoured vehicles?
  • I do, simply because of the relevance here. It is not unusual for the original purpose of standards to be expanded in practice. UL 1709, for example, started out simply as a standard for testing the fireproofing of structural steel in the oil patch, which means pipe bridges and vessel skirts. However, in practice, it was also applied to LPG containers, valves, and circuit integrity, whereby the curve gets borrowed and then used in other standards to substitute the ASTM E119 curve or DIN 4102 curve or ISO 834 curve. UL 752 started out in life for the glass industry, covering things like bank teller windows. By now, it has been used for many other things. Just ask UL in Northbrook or look up the public domain listing. I personally have run testing to STANAG 4569 on things other than armoured vehicles - and I am most definitely NOT the only one. The very important point here is this: there are vendors in a multitude of realms, who use "ad hoc" testing, where accredited test standards exist. And that leads end users subject to, let's say, "creative selling". And that can result in costs concerning lives and treasure. There are vendors who will run explosion tests without any shrapnel, for example, and even without any heat, such as in shock tubes, and then manage to persuade end users that they have covered "explosions", without elaborating that explosions without flying debris and without any heat signature have not been invented yet. If you read 850, you will see that it recommends that barriers be able to withstand explosions and thus flying debris from lightning arresters and bushings. That's backed up by demonstrable experience, albeit that this is still anecdotal, just like any fire event. It feels good for the vendor whose product held up in real life. They use it in advertising. But how exactly that relates next time, is not exactly known. It is purely psychological. Explosion and fragmentation testing must, necessarily, be very specific. The instant that an accredited standard is available, it is in the interest of product vendors to utilise this. When they do not, and opt to do "ad hoc" testing instead, there had better be a reason. So it is useful to be able to look up, what standard does one use? NATO is international. The Canadian building code, for example, does indicate that where there is a chance of explosions outside of a building, one must take countermeasures to protect the building envelope within that danger zone. Makes obvious sense, since the Canadian constitution, which is higher up the food chain than the building code, indicates that while in Canada, people have a right to safety. But the code does not say how to accomplish this. STANAG 4569 can be used to test countermeasures against blast, fragmentation and projectiles. Testing to that standard, same as UL 752, is done outside of the originally envisioned scope. By standardising, we lower the likelihood of gaming of the system.
Would you have any objections to moving the shooting attacks alongside Operation Josephine B in a single section?
There's a lot of redundancy in the article where it describes the same thing in multiple sections. Would you have any objection to cutting such material?
  • I don't. But when the edits have errors, it becomes too big a job to untangle.--Achim Hering (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please limit your reply to editing practises and the merits of the edits. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my suggestion is that I edit to address the items you raise, where it makes sense to me, and when finished, we re-visit?--Achim Hering (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Achim Hering: Okay. There's WP:NODEADLINE and I'm in no rush. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines as the broken lists in the discussion above will make it challenging for other editors to follow. I would also like to very politely suggest that if you don't like how Wikipedia works, you might prefer to host your detailed information on another website. For what it's worth. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No deadline. Gracious of you to point out. I think we can get on the same page here. First thing I did was to move the shooting attacks together with Josephine B. Makes sense to lump that together. --Achim Hering (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A work in progress. I am chipping away at it as I have time. Also putting in further back-up, as I find it, reducing the need to purchase documents to understand the context.--Achim Hering (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

I removed several paragraphs related to building codes and instances of concrete failure, neither of which is directly related to transformer fire barriers. Using a source that doesn't directly discuss the subject of the article is a form of WP:SYN (synthesis), a type of unacceptable original research. It would be more appropriate to briefly discuss the issue of spalling and provide a link to Concrete degradation for further reading. I would be glad to discuss any concerns. –dlthewave ☎ 16:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. –dlthewave ☎ 16:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A substantial amount of text was copied directly from NFPA 850. –dlthewave ☎ 16:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I removed a number of external links that do not seem helpful for further reading. They may be useful as sources, so I'm preserving them here:

–dlthewave ☎ 18:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Deleted into oblivion. Since usefulness has been removed, why not delete the whole thing? All dreams come true. In fact, delete Wikipedia. It violates its own procedures.--Achim Hering (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:High-voltage_transformer_fire_barriers&oldid=1201654884"