Talk:Icebreaker

message: Here is a video from the USCG which demonstrates icebreaking in action. It's from a USCG member while in the course of his duties so it's PD but it's in AVI format and I have no way to reformat it to the codec we are allowed to use here. It's pretty cool though. Nrbelex (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video 

message: When is a icebreaker a heavy breaker and when is it light? Both Canadian and US icebreakers have been categorized in this way, but no other icebreakers. As far as I could tell this has to do with the Ice Class Dead link). Heavy meaning it can handle Ice Class 1A Super (extremely difficult ice-conditions) or just 1A (difficult ice-conditions) and light meaning it can only handle Ice Class II (very easy ice-conditions). I've been unable to find any good sources to confirm this though, but I think it would be nice to definition the Ice Classes.
:By merging the above page and this SAFETY OF WINTER NAVIGATION IN THE BALTIC SEA AREA, I've come up with this table. I want to better sources and shrink it down before putting it in though.
:
Ice Class                                         	Extremely difficult ice-conditions	Difficult ice-conditions	Moderately difficult ice-conditions	Easy ice-conditions	Very easy ice-conditions
Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rules                   	I�? Super                         	I�?                     	IB                                 	IC                 	Category II
Russian Maritime Register of Shipping (Rules 1995)	UL                                	L1                      	L2                                 	L3                 	L4
Russian Maritime Register of Shipping (Rules 1999)	LU5                               	LU4                     	LU3                                	LU2                	LU1
American Bureau of Shipping                       	I�?�?                             	I�?                     	IB                                 	IC                 	D0
Bureau Veritas                                    	IA SUPER                          	I�?                     	IВ                                 	IC                 	ID
CASPPR, 1972                                      	�?                                	В                       	С                                  	D                  	E
China Classification Society                      	Ice Class B1*                     	Ice Class B1            	Ice Class B2                       	Ice Class B3       	Ice Class B
Det Norske Veritas                                	ICE-1�?*                          	ICE-1�?                 	ICE-1B                             	ICE-1С             	ICE-C
Germanischer Lloyd                                	Е4                                	Е3                      	E2                                 	E1                 	E
Korean Register of Shipping                       	ISS                               	IS1                     	IS2                                	IS3                	IS4
Lloyd’s Register of Shipping                      	1�?S                              	1A                      	1B                                 	1C                 	1D
Nippon Kaiji Kyokai                               	IA Super                          	IA                      	IB                                 	IC                 	ID
Registro Italiano Navale                          	IAS                               	IA                      	IB                                 	IC                 	ID
:Approximate correspondence between Ice Classes of the Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rules (Baltic Ice Classes) and the Ice Classes of other Classification Societies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.30.195.50 (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rules and their equivalents are mainly meant for merchant ships and thus can not be used to classify icebreakers. Up to ice class 1A the ships are assumed to operate mainly under icebreaker assistance. Some classification societies have separate set of rules for icebreakers, though, but I still wouldn't necessarily use them to classify icebreakers as "heavy" or "light". Tupsumato (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy- vs Normal vs Light-Icebreaker definition? 

message: The graph of the polarstern's longitudional vs lateral graph should be removed.   It doesnt seem at all significant... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misterboston (talk • contribs) 04:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polarstern Graph 

message: I'd like to split the list of icebreakers into a separate list article, and add it to :Category:Lists of ships. I feel the list of vessels belongs in a list article, the President of the United States article is separate from List of Presidents of the United States for example. If there's no feedback in one week I plan to go ahead with this change. XLerate (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split list from article 

message: I don't think having this picture in the article is necessary. There's already link to the double hull article, the term itself is self-explanatory and there's no need to go to the very basics in a specialized article. Tupsumato (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed another picture, this time the one showing the bow of an icebreaker from the bridge. There are simply too many pictures. Tupsumato (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed pic 

message: The history section begins with a relatively long description of the first ice-strengthened sailing ships, briefly touches the first steam-powered icebreakers and finally jumps to the nuclear-powered ones after mentioning something vague about diesel-powered icebreaking ships and, after I moved some text around in the article, hovercrafts. It is the same as starting with the history of computers from the invention of the transistor, mentioning some 80s computers such as the Commondore 64 and then jumping directly to Intel Xeon processor family — something is definitely missing! The age of steam in icebreaking should be described in detail as important inventions were made during those decades in the late 19th and early 20th century. The introduction of diesel-electric powertrain for icebreaking ships is an equally-important step and each generation of icebreakers adopted new innovative solutions. Somewhere in between the Russians went nuclear, but the section shouldn't go too deep in the technology - there's a separate article for them after all. Finally there is the modern age with azimuth propulsion, multipurpose icebreakers, double acting ships, oblique icebreakers and so on. Something could also be said on the future of icebreaking, for example in the light of global warming.
After the history lesson the article should have a section on the basics, ranging from the icebreaking process to the operation of icebreakers. References to the design and construction of icebreakers could be made, but they should be described in detail in the following section that would introduce the special features of icebreakers, namely specialized hull form and machinery. While some references to the past are okay, these sections should concentrate on modern icebreakers only. It must be noted that not all icebreakers currently in service can be considered modern — for example icebreakers with bow propellers have not been built since the 1970s, and AFAIK such icebreakers are not in use outside the Baltic Sea.
As for the recent advances, I think they should be incorporated to the history section and perhaps the one about design and construction. Also, what is the definition of "recent"? After all, even Azipods are already commonplace instead of something that's still being developed and introduced to the field. 
What's your opinion on this subject? Tupsumato (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The current history section was to a large extent written by me. If you could expand it, especially in the areas of diesel-powered icebreakers and modern icebreakers, that's great. GreyHood Talk 23:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll see what I can do. I already found some pretty good references. Tupsumato (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issues 

message: Has anything been tried like a revolving wheel with spikes (heavily reinforces of course) to break the ice?  It just seems to me that we could build a gigantic machine that could dig tunnels (through bedrock), surely something of that sort coule be used to break ice.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.45.231 (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sawing was sometimes used to open a channel for icebound ships before the first icebreakers were built and explosives have been used in the past. However, I have never heard of any "icebreaking machines". I don't think such method would be very efficient. Tupsumato (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been talking to people. Apparently the Soviets have tried almost everything when it comes to breaking ice, but not much information leaked to the outside world about the experiments. However, had such machines worked, we would have seen them in use already. Tupsumato (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has breaking ice by mechanical means been tried? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Amundsen-Fram.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: In History, should there be a subtitle in the middle of Steam powered, between the fourth and fifth paragraphs? Just a thought.Sammy D III (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, as diesel engines have been by far the most common prime movers in icebreakers since the second world war. Tupsumato (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a better place? Sort of implies the Winds were first, maybe qualify? Fifth and sixth paras could both use another sentence. Maybe names in 5? Others here write better. Have a fun day.  Sammy D III (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steam vs diesel 

message: As you can see , the meaning of the term "ice-strengthened ship" is not immediately obvious. (Here's a brief definition, although it's not an ideal ref.)
We ought to be able to link to a description from other articles, and an obvious place to link to would be somewhere in this article. However, I didn't see an obvious place, and creating a section "Ice-strengthened hull" would kind of throw this article a bit out of wack since there are references to ice-strengthened ships throughout the article. Spinning the first part of the History section into a separate article Ice-strengthened ship could be done. I don't know if that's called for. Not sure what to do here. Herostratus (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The hull structure of an icebreaker is quite different from that of a normal ice-strengthened merchant ship. According to the article, Lyubov Orlova was classified by the Russian Maritime Register of Shipping with ice class "L3" which is roughly equivalent to the Finnish-Swedish ice class 1C which is the lowest "real" Baltic ice class. Thus, I would not recommend linking to this article. Instead, how about linking to ice class as in "...has a hull strengthened for navigation in ice..."? The article is not very good, but I'm trying to get around to make it better one day. Tupsumato (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that's exactly what I was looking for, and couldn't find. Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  anchor for "ice-strengthened ship" (or "ice-strengthened hull") desired. 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/botnica/
*:Triggered by \bship-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Blacklisted link removed. I didn't find anything in the article that would support the section where the inline citation was placed. Tupsumato (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Hovercraft have been used to break ice, though they are less good when the ice is more than 1m thick.  The research was conducted by the National Research Council of Canada.   There are two methods, fast and slow.   Yet I don't see any mention of this in this article.   Unfortunately, my source is Insight Magazine from the early 1980s, which lacks precise information.   If anyone has a better source, please do add a section to this article.   Thanks. FreeFlow99 (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a link . Roberttherambler (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is it the same as this one? Tupsumato (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think so. Roberttherambler (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it to the article. Roberttherambler (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  hovercraft are missing from this article.