Milestone-Proposal talk:Milestone pacinotti
Advocates and reviewers will post their comments below. In addition, any IEEE member can sign in with their ETHW login (different from IEEE Single Sign On) and comment on the milestone proposal's accuracy or completeness as a form of public review.
Suggested revisions to the plaque citation -- Administrator4 (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest the following revision to the plaque citation in order to: 1) reduce the wording to less than the 70-word absolute maximum, 2) emphasise the main significance of Pacinotti's advance (namely the absence of pulses), 3) shift the passive voice to active, 4) delete the phrase about working both as a motor and a generator (since that is not unusual of dynamos) and 5) delete reference to the work of Gramme.
In 1863, Antonio Pacinotti, at the University of Pisa, described and built an early direct-current dynamo equipped with a ring armature, the first in Italy. He connected the groups of turns of the closed armature winding to the bars of a commutator. Pacinotti's machine was a practical dynamo because it produced steady current without pulses.
- Replace this text with your reply
Thank you for your suggestion on how to improve the plaque citation. In order to take into account your comment we propose the following new version:
In 1863, Antonio Pacinotti, at the University of Pisa, described and built a novel type of direct-current dynamo equipped with a ring armature. He connected the groups of turns of the closed armature winding to the bars of a commutator. Pacinotti's machine was a practical dynamo because it produced steady current without pulses. Pacinotti observed that the dynamo could work both as a generator and as a motor.
We are confident you may accept the above citation and I thank you again for your helpful suggestions.
Revision of the information relative to the plaque location -- Sbarmada (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
This text contains better information about the intended location of the plaque (revision suggested by the advocate)
The original labs where Antonio Pacinotti studied and operated as a Professor of Applied Physics are no longer existing. A prototype of his invention (an early dynamo machine equipped with a ring armature) is currently available at the University of Pisa. A bas-relief reproducing the image of Antonio Pacinotti and his dynamo is actually located In the main historical building (dating back to the 1930s) of the School of Engineering of the same university, next to the entrance of the main lecture hall. The bas-relief does not contain any details except the name of the scientist. The IEEE plaque could be placed side by side to the bas-relief, giving to both a great prominence and importance.
Following the suggestion of the advocate we propose a new title without the name Pacinotti
First Studies on Ring Armature for Direct-Current Dynamos, 1863
Advocate's Approval -- Juan Carlos (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Working together with Robert Dent, we have received 3 positive evaluations for the proposal, and none against.
From James Kirtley, (FIEEE) Professor at MIT and recipient of the IEEE “Nicola Tesla” Award. He did work and has an US patent related to ring armatures.
From Edward Owen, (FIEEE) specialist in rotating electrical machines and past member of the IEEE History Committee.
From Joe Cunningham -through Carl Sulzberger, both recognized for their dedication to History in the Power and Energy Society.
I myself have been active in the PES many years and my own evaluation is also positive.
As the advocate, I recommend this proposal to be approved as an IEEE Milestone.
Pacinotti’s design was new and the first one really producing useful Direct Current Power. It was seminal in the development of direct current dynamos. Furthermore, he was the first in observing the reversibility of electrical rotating machines between generator and motor. The name of the investigator, Antonio Pacinotti (who was granted Honorary Membership in the IEEE for this work) deserves to be included in the citation. The mention of Gramme’s posterior work is also important for clarification, because very few mentions of Pacinotti are found in the literature, and Gramme’s later work is much more known for practically the same ring armature design. This design was seminal in the development of direct current dynamos, and an IEEE Milestone is well deserved.
The name/title of the Milestone and the wording on the citation have been polished working together with the proposers; the final, revised version is as follows:
First Studies on Ring Armature for Direct-Current Dynamos, 1863
At the University of Pisa in 1863, Antonio Pacinotti described and built a dynamo with a slotted ring armature, a significant step leading to practical electrical machines for direct current. Groups of turns of the closed winding were connected to the bars of a commutator. He also observed that it worked both as a generator or motor. Years later a similar design was reinvented and patented by Zenobe Gramme.
Re: Advocate's Approval -- Jason.k.hui (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Not knowing the works of Pacinotti, I did an online search on him. Both http://ethw.org/Antonio_Pacinotti and Wikipedia have him building the dynamo in 1860 rather than 1863. It was reinvented by Gramme 10 years later. Why is 1863 being using in the citation?
More of the story -- Allisonmarsh (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I would like to know more of the history. This invention was awarded a medal at the Vienna exposition, but it didn't catch on? How did it influence the field? What practical applications was it put to? Why was it reinvented? If there is more information about the history of the invention, there is less necessity for naming individuals.
I concur with the previous two contributions: The milestone appears to be worthy of approval, the questions is what the milestone citation should highlight. Given the committee's hesitation in including individual names in milestone citations, providing more historical background the the citation appears to be a good solution. It may also help explain the significance of the milestone to a non-technical audience.
- 1 Suggested revisions to the plaque citation -- Administrator4 (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- 2 Revision of the information relative to the plaque location -- Sbarmada (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- 3 Title Revision -- Sbarmada (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- 4 Advocate's Approval -- Juan Carlos (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- 5 More of the story -- Allisonmarsh (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- 6 I concur -- CSchlombs (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)