Talk:Proximity fuze

message: I'm confused.  The word Fuse is clearly misspelled (at least the English version of this word).  Why is this article here and why does Proximity Fuse redirect here?  Nevermind.  I spoke before I had the facts.  Fuze seems to be acceptable.   I don't understand it but I have to accept it.  James084 13:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misspelling 

message: Bush who?  George Bush?70.225.179.182
:The Bush mentioned, Vannevar Bush, is unrelated to the Bush political family.  Bogsat 13:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bush?

message: The BuOrd 1946 ref has a nice description of the design. The ref describes doppler detection, but does not use the explicit words and glosses over some subtle design issues. The first tube is an autodyne stage that operates as an oscillator (to generate the transmitted RF signal and the local oscillator for detection), a mixer to detect the reflected signal, and an amplifier. The reflected signal is doppler shifted, mixed in the first stage (due to the nonlinearity of the transfer function; glossed over), and the difference frequency is selected at the plate of the Hartley oscillator and in subsequent stages. (In a normal Hartley oscillator, there is not be a plate load resistor; that shows the first stage is being used as an autodyne.) The BuOrd description further describes that a small band of difference frequencies are selected; those are the doppler shift frequencies. Doppler shift is not mentioned, but effect is described by changing distances and phase relationships. Glrx (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doppler 

message: For the wellman.
"The VT fuze concept in the context of artillery shells originated in the UK with British researchers (particularly Sir Samuel Curran[1]) and was developed under the direction of physicist Merle A. Tuve at The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab (APL)."
So this gives credit for the original concept ..to Britian and Sir S Curran....but was "developed" under the "direction" of M A Tuve at J.Hopkins. 4.5 years of uni, 2 degrees and a post grad later, and 2 years tutoring at uni, i'm pretty sure i can read.
And the idea for the Prox fuse, was churchills. It was actually developed for AAA. But of course the principles where applied to all areas.
The entire project was completed by the british, war reserch labs. TRE umbrella, but called the war labs.
Under order from churchill, the "completed" project was to be Quote: "transferred to the US, to be place into mass production". Reason being, the british had no more production lines avilable.
So the US produced them initially, and may have developed them further, but the concept, and development for operational use was completed before transfer.
And for $50 i will get you your own copy of the orders.
According to TRE, and Churchill, the project was finished. It only required, under the terms of information and tech sharing, to be "shared".
See..
Churchill war diaries, vol 2, Archive records British Library.
War ministry records, Imperial war Museum & British Library, national archives.
PS: Fuse is queens English. From  fus- 'poured, melted', from the verb fundere. Fuze is yankee.
verb
1 [with object] join or blend to form a single entity:
intermarriage had fused the families into a large unit[no object] (of groups of atoms or cellular structures) join or coalesce. melt (a material or object) with intense heat so as to join it with something else:
powdered glass was fused to a metal base
[no object] :
when fired in a special kiln, the metals fused on to the pot2 [no object] British (of an electrical appliance) stop working when a fuse melts:
the crew were left in darkness after the lights fused[with object] cause (an electrical appliance) to stop working when a fuse melts. 3 [with object] provide (a circuit or electrical appliance) with a fuse:
 (as adjective fused) 
a fused plugnoun
a safety device consisting of a strip of wire that melts and breaks an electric circuit if the current exceeds a safe level.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Originalfenir (talk • contribs) 03:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Been awhile since i have been here... 

message: There appears to be some doubt CIOS report ITEM no 3 file no XXVI -1 even exists... Can somebody confrim?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  08:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythical sources? 

message: I recall a story about the death of a US soldier in Vietnam. The author uncovered, after much effort, that the accidental death had occurred because an artillery round fired during the night had passed, due to negligence, overhead and close to a tree near the camp, which caused the shell to explode over the foxhole the soldier was sleeping in. My point in bringing this up is that I believe there is evidence that, in important cases, proximity fuses trigger when the shell is close to "something" on, or above, the ground, and that artillery officers as supposed to be aware of that. I think that emphasizing "height above ground" obscures this point. I am not sure what to say, but there must be a better, less misleading expression. --AJim (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  height above ground 

message: Anyone know if the Soviets worked on this problem during the war.  I know they had these very strange "rod tubes" designed for extreme stress, but not sure when that was done.  DonPMitchell (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet proximity fuze 

message: the article says the British "developed" the VT fuze and in the next sentence says they didn't have the ability to develop it.
Some word besides "develop" would probably serve better in one of those sentences depending on what it was they could and couldn't do.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.204.117 (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "develop" = invent or improve is kept; however Britain did not have a large enough industry to build it in quantity. I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  developed or not developed? 

message: Proximity fuses still exist and have developed a lot since WW2, yet the coverage in this article is so skewed towards WW2, an uninformed reader could assume they were only relevant during that war.  Can we get some post war developments? Hammerfrog (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much focus on WW2 

message: Secion World War II, Subsection Deployment: It says "Patton credited the introduction of proximity fuzes with saving Liege" but this links to the 1914 battle of Liege. Also, Patton's major engagement as the VT shells were rolled out was in Bastogne, not Liege which was not affected by the battle of the Bulge.-- IP User 64.53.215.183 21:18, 23 August 2021‎
The link to the WWI Battle of Liege is wrong so I removed it. The Nazi plan for the 16 Dec 1944 assault that became the Battle of the Bulge: Day 3: reach the Meuse between Liège and Dinant. Liege was a target. There was no Second Battle of Liege because the Germans were turned back. I'll defer to Vannevar Bush and accept that Gen Patton credited stopping the Germans from reaching Liege to the introduction of the proximity fuse. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Error - Battle of Liege? 

message: Only one of the image captions mentions the fuze type (magnetic).  I believe the others are radio/radar -- could someone familiar with this update the captions?  Thanks -SCEhardT 15:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image captions 

message: 2good2b true? Apparently according to
"Ammunition performance against kamikaze attacks in Philippines, Oct 44- Jan. 45. Source: Center of Naval Analyses, United States Navy: Defense Against Kamikaze Attacks in World War II and It's Relevance to Anti-ship Missile Defense (November 1970), Volume I, 75-76."
It was close to 3x for VT and only using 5" guns, with worse than conventional results for 3". Gendalv (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "5-10 times" 

message: Since this is an electronic device, it is susceptible to electromagnetic warfare such as jamming (e.g. ), shouldn't there be some mentioning of that? --Voidvector (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: this suggests that modern proximity fuzes may be made to be difficult to jam, but I don't think this source or yours are useful for supporting potential text in the article. We'd need reliable sources from a subject matter expert on the history, use and effectiveness, and I'm unaware of one. (Hohum @) 18:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioning of countermeasures? 

message: Scientific American ran an article about Emma Rotor, a forgotten woman scientist who did significant research on the fuze.  Perhaps this can be fleshed out and added to this article.  Unfortunately, Scientific American does not go into much detail about her work.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/this-filipina-physicist-helped-develop-a-top-secret-weapon/ CosmicDragonRabbit (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emma Unson Rotor - filipina physicist who did research on the Fuze