Talk:Western Union splice

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Expansion[edit]

I'll try to expand the article from the NASA source, since there is more there than is here, but I know nothing about the subject. I'd only come across splicing in relation to rope. Taxman ^Talk 23:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done sir. Some further edits from that source done today.

Same as "Britannia Joint"[edit]

This "Western Union" splice referred to in this article is also known in the UK as a "Britannia Joint" and was often taught to apprentices in British industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.199.60 (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per this first source, the two splices share the same aim, but are differently constructed, and so the change is not made. See here.

Figure part D[edit]

Figure part D looks wrong, one half is a left-handed helix, the other half right-handed, shouldn't both halves be the same form of helix? Jasen betts (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. The other figures look alright though. - Soulkeeper (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The text now refers to these as parts, and not separate figures, and so I made edits to the original Talk post to reflect this. The problem appears real, is critical if only for reasons of consistency (cf. parts C and D, and then the relative left and right twists of parts D, E, and F), and so this issue may be broader than just this one part of the Figure. Hence, a call for an expert update.

I think the figure is wrong and was a mistake in the 1915 ref. The photographs in the NASA and Make refs show both helices having the same handedness. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

bad figure[edit]

my thats a confusing figure. How exactly do we get from e to f? not to mention probable copyright violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjxj (talk • contribs) 14:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Text was added to address the concerns you raise; one does not get from figure parts E to F, they are separate, slightly different, but related "long tie" splices. With regard to copyright, the source is now cited, and we note that

"For works created before January 1, 1978, that were published or registered before that date, the initial term of copyright was twenty-eight years from the date of publication with notice or from the date of registration. At the end of the initial term, the copyright could be renewed for another sixty-seven years for a total term of protection of up to ninety-five years. [ See here. ]

and so that 2010 would have been the year of expiry of copyright protection for the 1915 publication.

The figure should probably be redrawn - there are photographs in the NASA and Make refs. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]