Talk:Bagger 288

message: Article states "It weighs 45,500 tons, which makes it heavier than RMS Titanic (46,328 tons)." That would make it less heavy and not heavier, coming up short by about 828 tons.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.80.165 (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The figure's bullshit and comes from a pop-science book for kids. Bagger 293 holds the record for terrestrial vehicle weight and only weighs 14,196 tons, so there's no way 288 weighs 45,000 tons. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Math?

message: Bagger 288 was built by a company now owned by TAKRAF. Bagger 293 relates to this company. Krupp has nothing to do with it?--Kimse84 (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Bagger 288 was made by a devision of Krupp (Krupp Industrietechnik) together with Siemens, as can be seen on the panorama image, so Krupp has something to do with it. Currently, there is "ThyssenKrupp Fördertechnik GmbH" offering bucket wheel excavators, which seems to have nothing in common with Takraf.--77.182.179.142 (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Ownership

message: It seems to be at 51.050352,6.517945 now.  I'd adjust the coordinates, but can someone confirm that the machine there is the Bagger?  --Tardis (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New location 

message: From looking at google maps there appears to be 8 of the monsters.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.69.51 (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twin Sister 

message: I thought the laymans unit for volume was olympic swimming pools not football fields dug to some arbitary depth.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.75.111.12 (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laymans units 

message: So it is electrical, externally powered... how is it supplied on operation ? How was it supplied for it's move ?--Musaran (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the German page linked at the bottom of the article: "Der Bagger hat für seine Stromversorgung eine Kabeltrommel mit einem Kilometer Stromleitung an Bord, die unterwegs immer wieder an andere Einspeisepunkte angeschlossen wird." My translation: "For its power supply, the excavator carries a 1-kilometre cable reel, which has to be repeatedly plugged into different power feeds when on the move." Quite a disappointment, considering the heroic picture a certain tribute music video painted of it. ;) --81.154.240.24 (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if they gave it too much power when they let it out of the pit it would eat Germany. They might tell the public the pit is a mine, but really we know it's to trap them until they need to be unleashed on Godzillas or doom robots from the future. Herr Gruber (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power supply 

message: I noticed there isn't much of a history/motivation section on why the Bagger 288 was created. May I propose the following section? 
:The leaders of the world sat down around a secret table.
:There was a threat to human kind they must defend against.
:To fight against Godzillas, they just simply were not able.
:Doom robots from the future could be met with no defense.
:The leader of the Germans stood with a triumphant roar,
:"I've got it! We will build a machine that's totally great!"
:"A massive steel leviathan with blades covered in gore"
:Beelzebub himself will fear the Bagger 288!
In addition to being factually correct, it adds some much needed lyricism to Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.215.236 (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Could someone please explain, if this is real and not just a fabrication, why their is no "Deutsch" on the left as an interwiki link to this supposedly German machine?  I'm not passing judgment one way or another, I would just like to know. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: German wikipedia has an single article on the entire bagger series. --Leivick (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, arbitrary skepticism is so grand. Here's Tagebau Hambach with a whole bunch of excavators visible. Here's Tagebau Garzweiler. Still think they're fake? Herr Gruber (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I saw one as a child. It's indeed incredibly big; it also leaves incredibly large scars on the landscape. SeverityOne (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I was reverted for trolling, so let me ask again, more neutrally 

message: "Bagger 288 superseded NASA's Crawler-Transporter, used to carry the Space Shuttle and Apollo Saturn V launch vehicle, as the largest land vehicle in the world at 13,500 tons." however, at Bagger 293 article it is stated that "It is 225 metres (738.2 feet) long (same as Bagger 287), weighs 14,200 tons (31.3 million lb), and requires five people to operate.", so isn't that the largest based on weight?
Slsh (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 288 was completed in 1978, 293 in 1995. You missed "when it was completed" at the start of the sentence; it was then, it isn't anymore. Herr Gruber (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And even back then the crawler was way smaller than the former bagger-types then. Bagger 260 e.g. weight was/is 7800 tons. --212.23.103.86 (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and Big Muskie and The Captain were both around five times heavier than the crawler-transporters and built in '69 and '65 (the latter the same year as the crawlers), so I'm not sure about what that source is getting at. Herr Gruber (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biggest? 

message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azEvfD4C6ow
thiz video claims that the bagger 288 can beat belzeboob
is this true?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.248.216 (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know. Let's evoke Beelzebub and watch the fight after he shows up. If he doesn't show up, he obviously has too much fear, so we can call Bagger 288 the winner.--77.182.179.142 (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this thing beat bealzebub? 

message: :there are at least 2 persons standing on the machine in the picture, so that should be enough of a size comparison (for instance on the right of the lower level of the crawler of the dumping arm)--178.24.208.211 (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wish some one was standing near it in the photo for comparison

message: In what dimension is it the "largest?" The reason I ask is the Baggers aren't nearly as long as the five Overburden Conveyor Bridge F60s and only 293 is heavier (288 is a hundred tons lighter). Herr Gruber (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Planet earth is the largest vehicle. xnamkcor (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't. Herr Gruber (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualifying "Largest" land vehicle 

message: Some of the IPC entries in this article are irrelevant (about a different topic) or inadequately referenced. I propose to limit these entries to the ones relevant to this article which can be supported with a reliable secondary source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The content you're adding does not meet those standards - please provide a reliable secondary source that indicates the significance of the material to the topic, or stop adding it. See WP:BURDEN. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPC 

message: According to the rule of 60ths, an incline of 1:18 should be ~3.3 degrees.  
(This might be wrong by up to +/-0.2, since the rule of 60ths ("one degree is ~1:60, multiply/divide as needed") is known to be wrong by ~5% even in the low limit.  It's basically a rule of thumb, by equating both sin x and tan x to x itself, and 2pi to 6.  So, both sin x and tan x equal 2pi x / 360 = x/60.)  The stated 5 degrees is, however, about 50% too large, possibly by equating 1:1 to 90 degrees.  (BTW, even if it worked that way, shouldn't 90 degrees be 1:0, and 45° = 1:1?) 
Now, I can't say which one is right, since there's no source attached (my gut feeling is that 1:18 is right, since incline is more common in technical literature than angles), but if I'm wrong, an edit on my part would turn the current error into another error which is harder to detect.  So I'll abstain from editing for now.  84.148.241.219 (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It (...) can climb a maximum gradient of 1:18 (5° incline)."