Talk:Line of thrust

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Civil engineering Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil 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.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCivil engineering Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I note that links to this article has just been added to articles about pistons (desaxe), rockets (Walter HWK 109-507), jet engines (Bede BD-5) and propellers (The Butterfly Golden). Now these are good links, the conceptual line of thrust (especially in these three seemingly off-axis examples) is significant. It might even be added to multi-engined aircraft or counter-rotating propellers, as they don't always have their multiple lines of thrust parallel, which is worth noting.

The trouble is though that this article is about bridges. The line of thrust here is a different concept - in particular, this line is a locus, not a vector. The line in bridges can curve.

This article also needs to be added as links to skew arch and probably some of the examples of skew bridges, as it's an important concept there.

Does line of thrust need to convert to a disambiguation? Then make a new article for "line of thrust" as a vector for thrust-producing engines? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or just break this article into sections? If that could handle it, without a mess of cross-linked article on different-but-related concepts, that might be nicer.

dino (talk)

Are they the same concept?

Technically, we can do either. We can also do one then split later, if it seems to make sense. But I think it needs to start with some sections and concept that makes the distinction clear. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]