Illustration[edit]

I do not get the graphic.

It shows dimensions of 120 and 70, but below it there is a formula that shows 120/100. Where do you get the dimension of 100 from?

My guess is that you left out the dimension of the radius of the tube, but included the dimension from the center of the tube to the centerpoint of the circle.

Can you update the graphic OR the formula so it is correct? (or at least explain it to me?)

Yes, the tips of the arrows are meant to indicate the points between which the dimensions are measured. Thus it was 70 units from the centre of the arc to the centre of the tube, which left 50 to get to the other side of the tube (120 total), so the diameter of the tube was 100. However I agree, this wasn't the clearest way to label it. I've made a new version; please have a look and see if that's clearer. Securiger 11:07, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, correct me if I'm wrong but a tangential ogive is a kind of secant ogive. The graphic says "secant ogive" which is right, but it's also a tangential ogive. I must confess that I didn't understand what a secant ogive that isn't a tangential ogive is from the description alone. The following two links help me: http://mountainmolds.com/helpOgive.htm and http://www.goldeneaglebulletworks.com/spitzer.html. Maybe clarify the differences? Keep up the good work.


I do think the discussion of the elliptical ogive could use some work, or an example, or a diagram, or something. And I'd like to see detail on von Karman. I may read the last Talk poster's links and edit it, but I bet I won't get around to editing it, based on past behaviour. --jholman 11:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A pronunciation would be a great addition...

where the word originated from[edit]

it would help if you would put whre the word originated from, i was asked by a boyfriend in the military what the definition is and were the word originated from and i have searched several places and cant find it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.224.46.183 (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Could someone add to the architecture section the ogival arches found in Persian and Islamic architecture? They appear earlier than Gothic arches, and are refered as ogival by Arthur Upham Pope. I don't know whether he coined the term or not, but Martin Briggs criticizes him for using it in the Burlington Magazine. 68.35.245.121 20:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

graphs[edit]

examples problems in ogive using graph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.104.108 (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP edit warring, please explain what you are trying to do here?[edit]

IP, you are moving indian sources below and imposing sassanian notion, that is not backed by any sources, please explain your edits here. Hammy0007 (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section is a mess, with poor grammar and lack of clarity. Really pointed arch needs it own article. The earliest origins are still a matter of considerable disagreement between scholars, and we need to be clear whether the arches are corbel arches etc, or "true arches" with a strong load-bearing capacity. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Categories