![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Your reversion of my edit was not correct. The current statement is accurate. Increasing angular speed by reducing moment of inertia is what is illustrated in the figure. There is no need to add an inaccurate principle when a perfectly good explanation is already available. Conservation of angular momentum can only occur when the resultant force on the body is a central force--try looking at an engineering textbook instead of an elementary physics text (e.g., Beer & Johnston). Most biomechanics texts also will agree (Robertson, Caldwell, Hamill et al., 2004). When a person is airborne you could use the conservation principle (unless there is a large air resistance or air speed, e.g., parachuting). If you change the image to a figure skater in the air then you could apply the conservation principle. In the text, I added an example of a diver that is more appropriate. Keep up your good work on the article but try to refrain from oversimplifying a complex motion.
Hey Chetvorno, given your interest in horology (and crystal oscillators) I have a project I think you'd find really interesting. Sorry for contacting you here, I couldn't find you elsewhere on the web. You can reach me at kevinrose [at] google (more about me can be found here: http://about.me/kevinrose and here: /info/en/?search=Kevin_Rose ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekevinrose ( talk • contribs) 05:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, you c
Hi Chetvorno, first a happy and a peaceful new year.
But to my problem. You deleted my remark "component" in the article Crystal oscillator. But have a look, in the article "Crystal oscillator" in all paragraphs the behavior and the parameter of a quartz crystall is described. You can't find any description of an oscillator in this article. The meaning of "oscillator" in this case is not unique. "to oscillate" is here a mechanical behavior of the quartz crystal and has lead in the past to the term "Crystal oscillator" as an oscillating component. The term Quartz crystal has a redirect to Quartz. If you want to describe an oscillator the term Electronic oscillator will be used. I am sorry, but Crystal oscillator is not an oscillator but an electro-mechanical component. It is very much easier in the German language, here the term "Schwingquarz" say directly that the quartz is oscillating (schwingen). If you agree I will add my remark "component" in a few days again. kind regards-- Elcap ( talk) 13:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Really?
1) not wrong - physicist
2) long is not a problem for a long article. the lede covered all the key aspects of the topic IMHO
3) you don't source ledes unless they make statements not covered in the body. all of the information i posted in the new lede was covered in the body.
4) the lede I replaced SUCKED. If you're going to "fix" it, maybe try replacing it with something even better, rather than the horrible confusing mash that was there before.
I leave it in your hands. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 19:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you changed the origin of your image on commons. That's a good thing to do, but I don't know the answer to the copyright question is. Such graphs may be common/obvious, and the data may not be subject to copyright. Apparently many variations of the periodic table are not copyrightable, so it is possible the glow discharge is not either. I just don't know. Glrx ( talk) 03:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Following your thorough reworking of negative resistance I feel it ought to be nominated as a GA. What do you think? Spinning Spark 20:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi - I have recently completed a major revision of this page, and am hoping that someone will review it so that I can judge what standard I have achieved. Could you have a look ? G4oep ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. I have added several more pix since yesterday. I am not certain how to go about the proposed merger with 'Beam Tetrode'. G4oep ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
We seem to have very similar interests, judged from the fact that we keep bumping into each other in many different contexts. I must say I like your style even though we sometimes don't agree - tho we mostly do. I would like to thank you for looking at the Tetrode page, which I have been editing. Would you like to take a peek at the Tetrode Talk page ? I am using Tetrode as a tool for honing my editing skills and although I am running out of ideas for how to improve it further, it seems that there is still a lot to be done to raise it to a good standard. I am interested in finding out exactly what is required. I have asked for my User Page to be deleted, because it attracted some personal abuse, and I am not happy to reinstate it. But if you would like to know something of my interests just google G4OEP. Btw - I am a retired Senior Lecturer from the University of the West of England (Applied Science Faculty), so I have a strong interest in, and loads of experience of teaching. G4oep ( talk) 10:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for you comments G4oep ( talk) 09:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for you very detailed comments on 'Tetrode'. I greatly appreciate the trouble you have taken to make clear what is needed there. Prior to reading that material I had given up, feeling that there was no way that I would ever understand what Wiki users look for in an article. I was beginning to become impatient. Amusing though it might seem now, I really misunderstood "accessibility" (which, to me as a native English speaker, means attainable, approachable, within reach, available, on hand, obtainable, etc"). You have revealed that it is a wikipedia jargon word which, ironically, seems to mean "plain and understandable language", and has nothing to do with my anxiety about references of questionable availability ! This all helps! Your comments have given me plenty to think about. I am just hoping that my enthusiasm for this project will return ! Thanks again - you have really worked at it, and I appreciate that. G4oep ( talk) 10:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I would go ahead and cut back the excessive Tesla material at Wireless power. If GLPeterson reverts we take it from there. The editor's unresponsiveness (including posting Neil Armstrong quotes instead of replying on his talk page) has brought us to WP:DISRUPT, in fact we are way down the flow chart at WP:DDE (at the level of ANI). It all may go nowhere from here, his MO in the past seems to be to push the Wikipedia process as far as he can before sanction and then vanishing for a while. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 20:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
FYI this has been filed using your contributed material [1]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 00:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
On The Media: Over the last several months, Craig Silverman, author of Poynter’s Regret the Error blog, has been tracking the way rumors and unverified claims spiral through the news. Uncorrected Rumors ( transcript)
So, replacing a series of unverified claims with a referenced causal narrative showing what really happened can lead to that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 23:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
This in retrospect looks like a comment on your edit but was not intended that way. I was actually trying to correct the lead "first working radio communication system" and fumbling around for a more descriptive section title. Good catch btw, haven't been watching this article but knew it was a bit of a povfork from Invention of radio. Decided to do "future cleanup" now. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 21:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure if you were directing to me regarding civility on that talk-page, but I guess you probably were cause this was one of rare occasions I really lost all good-faith towards an editor. You may not know, but that same user has been persistently been wanting to add more Croatia to the article for 2 years now. I simply have no patience anymore for nationalistic POV-pushers anymore. First it all started by him wanting to add how Tesla was born in Croatia (he was born in Military Frontier, Austria), then he wanted to change to Croatian-American scientist, now he is basically making fun of this entire project by claiming there were some local citizenships within Austro-Hungary and that if people of the Hungarian part of A-H empire didn't had Hungarian nationality they probably have Croatian one, but all of this without any source talking anything about actually Tesla having it. So I don't think you see the amount of obsession one has to have to ignore all and everything and to want to say Tesla had Croatian citizenship only based on assumptions and then accusing everyone else of being anti-Croatian for dismissing his proposals. Sorry but it is so ridiculous, I dare to sa we are facing a Croatian nationalist teenager who is making fun and making everyone loose time here. Honestly, I was wishing that he reported me for saying "fuck" so I could provide him a boomerang so we could end this madness at Tesla article once and for all. Best regards, FkpCascais ( talk) 19:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Chris, at Gain I changed your edit of Sep. 28, 2012 as per here. Let me know if you disagree with any of the changes. "Mean radiation intensity from an antenna" and "radiation intensity from an isotropic antenna" are synonymous so your "isotropic" is not the issue, only "lossless" = 100% efficient which you omitted. Re the change from receiving to transmitting, the definitions are customarily given for the latter. Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 06:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
I, Maslesha, as a Wiki member and contributor, hereby wish to thank You, and then thank You again, and thank You once more, for your diligence and effort in making the Wikipedia a better, less biased, and more reliable resource than any other resource people around the world can use. It is equally a surprise and a true honor to find such a dedicated and unbiased author, from which the Wikipedia can only expect to flourish. Live long and prosper! :) Maslesha ( talk) 23:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC) |
Thank you so much! I've never gotten an award on WP, I've always toiled in obscurity. :) -- Chetvorno TALK 14:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry to have caused you so much concern. Please see new thread at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Thanks. • Lingzhi♦ (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The usual practice is to retain the url of the original site and have the archive as an additional link, not remove the original altogether as you did
here. Personally, I add the archive manually (
example) but it can also be added in the cite template using the archive-url=
and archive-date=
parameters. One sets dead-url=no
to tell the template that the original link still works and should be used rather than the archive. If the link goes dead in the future, then change to dead-url=yes
.
Spinning
Spark
13:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I really like the cleanup and expansion. The article makes allot more sense now. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 15:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I also appreciate your efforts to make the article on wireless power more understandable for the general audience, and I also like your clean-up. However, many researchers into the subject, most notably in the Japanese JAXA and NASA in the US, were left out. I am sure you'll be able to find them after searching the relevant published papers databases. My issue here is that Dr. /info/en/?search=Marin_Solja%C4%8Di%C4%87 and his company, /info/en/?search=WiTricity were given an undue amount of attention, almost like an advertisement(!) as if he (and his company) were at the forefront of the wireless energy transfer research. In reality, their results were no better than those of the other researchers. There were no breakthroughs made by Soljacic's experiments, so I believe he should be mentioned, but not so ostentatious, as if the others didn't contribute to the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maslesha ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe Mr. Soljacic, and his company, should be mentioned no more than once. He deserves to be mentioned, but not as a "leader" in the field. Rather as a contributor, among many others. Any more than that would, imho, constitute an advertising. Unless his team manages to do something exceptional, his contributions are about at the same level as the previous art. Thus, at this point, I'd recommend a "trim" of the article, and to keep it at that, until something noteworthy appears.
I believe this is incorrect: "A semiconductor crystal (detector) which extracts the audio signal (modulation) from the radio frequency carrier wave."
The diode only rectifies the voltage. It does not extract the audio part.
If the frequency of the applied voltage to a diode is 100,000 hz , the passed frequency will be rectified but at the same frequency, 100,000 hz.
The extraction of the audio frequencies from the rectified carrier frequency takes place in the headphones, which are of an electro-mechanical nature and are made to respond to 10 - 10,000 hz. The 100,000 hz carrier frequency can drive the earphone but it can only respond at audio frequencies. They cannot respond at 100,000 hz. Zedshort ( talk) 00:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
No, with the bypass capacitor the pulses of carrier current are bypassed to ground and the voltage across the capacitor applied to the earphone is the pure audio waveform outlined by the peaks (curve C). The capacitor acts as the filter instead of the earphone; that's it's only function. The pulses of current from the diode charge the capacitor up to the dotted line and the capacitor voltage follows the slow audio variations, "smoothing" the carrier variations out. -- Chetvorno TALK 00:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Here are some supporting sources that it is the diode that produces the audio, not the earphone:
Zedshort ( talk) 20:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Note none of these references give any role in demodulation to the earphone or speaker except translating the audio signal to sound; some don't even mention it. -- Chetvorno TALK 00:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Some apologies, I didn't notice your edit [2] just before mine, please excuse the term "bogus". I saw the text, thought it was old material, wondered how I missed it, and reworked it. I have been working on related articles and ID'ed the " Fred Peterson" involved as Frederick Peterson, a neurologist who does not seem to have a connection with Edison but does have a continual connection with Columbia University, where Brown's dog demo's were done. Also several sources show the electric chairs invention and final design was by Southwick and company (Fell). The Edison/Brown roll was to finalize the "AC or DC?" question and how much voltage (they pushed AC... go figure ;)). There could be a real Peterson/Brown/Edison connection here, they were all a little too "buddy-buddy" but need a ref on that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 16:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For your large contributions to knowledge of Tesla coils and all things that "resonate". Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 14:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC) |
Thank you very much! Although I have to admit that in my case the word "tireless" translates to "unemployed". -- Chetvorno TALK 18:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Chetvorno, I noticed you defined digital signals in analog signal. I've extended and hopefully clarified your definition, and I would be interested in any comments you might have on that.
There's been some question about what a digital signal really is over at Talk:digital signal, and there's been a proposal to turn it into a disambiguation page. I thought you might be interested in the discussion. GliderMaven ( talk) 07:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
No longer in my head [3]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 03:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
You checked in this note in Sentinel "The term "Crazy Ivan" refers to a submarine maneuver and has nothing to do with missiles". That is not true, the term was used to describe rouge launches. I have added a ref to demonstrate this. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 12:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!
Sent of behalf of
Nikkimaria for
The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Communications satellite may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 12:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
According to WP's Neutrodyne article, it is a special type of TRF rather than a separate type of radio receiver. Glrx ( talk) 02:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
You have made a lot of useful contributions here even if you deleted some of mine (no offense taken, they were poorly introduced). In the non-radiative near-field section, I have planned to add soon some brief considerations concerning coupling coefficients and also to explain simply how resonance associated to large Q-factors improves the performances without modifying the link itself (the coupling coefficient depends only on geometric consideration or equivalently on self and mutal inductance or capacitance). I also think that the resonant induction could be introduced in a simpler manner (two distant coils in series with two capacitors), as it is used in most application (Witricity uses combined air transformers for impedance adaptation reasons nothing more). The same schematic is used in many recent papers for coupled capacitors (whatever the physical implementation). By the way the transverse capacitive configuration (not known as such) was introduced for power transfer by a New-Zealand guy a long time ago, but recent articles do not even mention him, can you help to restore his historical contribution. Finally they have been recently a few proposal based on radiative near-field techniques in the GHz frame (using for instance phase conjugation technique), they deserve according to me a section in the Wireless Power page. Besides, I am thinking on a Galinean Electromagnetism page that could be used for an elegant introduction of Quasi-Electrostatics and Quasi-Magnetostatics, your contributions will be appreciated. Henri BONDAR ( talk)
Hi Chet, My error in not signing in to edit the Project Diana page. The edits are factual.
The presence of the Ocean-Monmouth Amateur Radio Club on the Diana Site can be verified via both organizations websites [1] and [2]
The site is maintained by OMARC. OMARC was at that location before InfoAge was created under the supervision of the Department of Defense BRAC program. The arrangement was to mow lawns, paint buildings, pay for utilities, and be the custodians of the site.
You can verify location on Google, the IRS non-profit website, and the local phone directory.
Regards, Martin Flynn
N2mo ( talk) 21:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
... [4] yes, but distributed models are also represented and analyzed by elements. Spinning Spark 18:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Chetvorno, I think it's good to add back "Society must have laws", but the first four references come from newspaper reporters and bloggers. For the purposes of a formal (or informal) application of logic, these sources are Wikipedia unreliable and should be removed. ~~ BlueMist ( talk) 00:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I followed up at WP:RMT. Any comments? — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 00:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Much better [5], I was getting lost there myself. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 17:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Please check the torque equation for the [ slider mechanism]. It is not correct as it now is.
The mechanical advantage of a crank, the ratio between the force on the connecting rod and the torque on the shaft, varies throughout the crank's cycle. The relationship between the two is approximately:
where is the torque and F is the force on the connecting rod.
Surgbc ( talk) 11:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all your edits. Glrx ( talk) 19:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I am doing a small school project on PAVE PAWS. There is lots of confusing data online on where there are ACTIVE PAVE PAWS sites? I believe the only active site using the orginal PAVE PAWS site is 6SWS at Cape Cod. Is this correct? Thank you Terence starzl ( talk) 21:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Your reversion of my edit was not correct. The current statement is accurate. Increasing angular speed by reducing moment of inertia is what is illustrated in the figure. There is no need to add an inaccurate principle when a perfectly good explanation is already available. Conservation of angular momentum can only occur when the resultant force on the body is a central force--try looking at an engineering textbook instead of an elementary physics text (e.g., Beer & Johnston). Most biomechanics texts also will agree (Robertson, Caldwell, Hamill et al., 2004). When a person is airborne you could use the conservation principle (unless there is a large air resistance or air speed, e.g., parachuting). If you change the image to a figure skater in the air then you could apply the conservation principle. In the text, I added an example of a diver that is more appropriate. Keep up your good work on the article but try to refrain from oversimplifying a complex motion.
Hey Chetvorno, given your interest in horology (and crystal oscillators) I have a project I think you'd find really interesting. Sorry for contacting you here, I couldn't find you elsewhere on the web. You can reach me at kevinrose [at] google (more about me can be found here: http://about.me/kevinrose and here: /info/en/?search=Kevin_Rose ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekevinrose ( talk • contribs) 05:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, you c
Hi Chetvorno, first a happy and a peaceful new year.
But to my problem. You deleted my remark "component" in the article Crystal oscillator. But have a look, in the article "Crystal oscillator" in all paragraphs the behavior and the parameter of a quartz crystall is described. You can't find any description of an oscillator in this article. The meaning of "oscillator" in this case is not unique. "to oscillate" is here a mechanical behavior of the quartz crystal and has lead in the past to the term "Crystal oscillator" as an oscillating component. The term Quartz crystal has a redirect to Quartz. If you want to describe an oscillator the term Electronic oscillator will be used. I am sorry, but Crystal oscillator is not an oscillator but an electro-mechanical component. It is very much easier in the German language, here the term "Schwingquarz" say directly that the quartz is oscillating (schwingen). If you agree I will add my remark "component" in a few days again. kind regards-- Elcap ( talk) 13:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Really?
1) not wrong - physicist
2) long is not a problem for a long article. the lede covered all the key aspects of the topic IMHO
3) you don't source ledes unless they make statements not covered in the body. all of the information i posted in the new lede was covered in the body.
4) the lede I replaced SUCKED. If you're going to "fix" it, maybe try replacing it with something even better, rather than the horrible confusing mash that was there before.
I leave it in your hands. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 19:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you changed the origin of your image on commons. That's a good thing to do, but I don't know the answer to the copyright question is. Such graphs may be common/obvious, and the data may not be subject to copyright. Apparently many variations of the periodic table are not copyrightable, so it is possible the glow discharge is not either. I just don't know. Glrx ( talk) 03:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Following your thorough reworking of negative resistance I feel it ought to be nominated as a GA. What do you think? Spinning Spark 20:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi - I have recently completed a major revision of this page, and am hoping that someone will review it so that I can judge what standard I have achieved. Could you have a look ? G4oep ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. I have added several more pix since yesterday. I am not certain how to go about the proposed merger with 'Beam Tetrode'. G4oep ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
We seem to have very similar interests, judged from the fact that we keep bumping into each other in many different contexts. I must say I like your style even though we sometimes don't agree - tho we mostly do. I would like to thank you for looking at the Tetrode page, which I have been editing. Would you like to take a peek at the Tetrode Talk page ? I am using Tetrode as a tool for honing my editing skills and although I am running out of ideas for how to improve it further, it seems that there is still a lot to be done to raise it to a good standard. I am interested in finding out exactly what is required. I have asked for my User Page to be deleted, because it attracted some personal abuse, and I am not happy to reinstate it. But if you would like to know something of my interests just google G4OEP. Btw - I am a retired Senior Lecturer from the University of the West of England (Applied Science Faculty), so I have a strong interest in, and loads of experience of teaching. G4oep ( talk) 10:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for you comments G4oep ( talk) 09:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for you very detailed comments on 'Tetrode'. I greatly appreciate the trouble you have taken to make clear what is needed there. Prior to reading that material I had given up, feeling that there was no way that I would ever understand what Wiki users look for in an article. I was beginning to become impatient. Amusing though it might seem now, I really misunderstood "accessibility" (which, to me as a native English speaker, means attainable, approachable, within reach, available, on hand, obtainable, etc"). You have revealed that it is a wikipedia jargon word which, ironically, seems to mean "plain and understandable language", and has nothing to do with my anxiety about references of questionable availability ! This all helps! Your comments have given me plenty to think about. I am just hoping that my enthusiasm for this project will return ! Thanks again - you have really worked at it, and I appreciate that. G4oep ( talk) 10:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I would go ahead and cut back the excessive Tesla material at Wireless power. If GLPeterson reverts we take it from there. The editor's unresponsiveness (including posting Neil Armstrong quotes instead of replying on his talk page) has brought us to WP:DISRUPT, in fact we are way down the flow chart at WP:DDE (at the level of ANI). It all may go nowhere from here, his MO in the past seems to be to push the Wikipedia process as far as he can before sanction and then vanishing for a while. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 20:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
FYI this has been filed using your contributed material [1]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 00:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
On The Media: Over the last several months, Craig Silverman, author of Poynter’s Regret the Error blog, has been tracking the way rumors and unverified claims spiral through the news. Uncorrected Rumors ( transcript)
So, replacing a series of unverified claims with a referenced causal narrative showing what really happened can lead to that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 23:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
This in retrospect looks like a comment on your edit but was not intended that way. I was actually trying to correct the lead "first working radio communication system" and fumbling around for a more descriptive section title. Good catch btw, haven't been watching this article but knew it was a bit of a povfork from Invention of radio. Decided to do "future cleanup" now. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 21:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure if you were directing to me regarding civility on that talk-page, but I guess you probably were cause this was one of rare occasions I really lost all good-faith towards an editor. You may not know, but that same user has been persistently been wanting to add more Croatia to the article for 2 years now. I simply have no patience anymore for nationalistic POV-pushers anymore. First it all started by him wanting to add how Tesla was born in Croatia (he was born in Military Frontier, Austria), then he wanted to change to Croatian-American scientist, now he is basically making fun of this entire project by claiming there were some local citizenships within Austro-Hungary and that if people of the Hungarian part of A-H empire didn't had Hungarian nationality they probably have Croatian one, but all of this without any source talking anything about actually Tesla having it. So I don't think you see the amount of obsession one has to have to ignore all and everything and to want to say Tesla had Croatian citizenship only based on assumptions and then accusing everyone else of being anti-Croatian for dismissing his proposals. Sorry but it is so ridiculous, I dare to sa we are facing a Croatian nationalist teenager who is making fun and making everyone loose time here. Honestly, I was wishing that he reported me for saying "fuck" so I could provide him a boomerang so we could end this madness at Tesla article once and for all. Best regards, FkpCascais ( talk) 19:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Chris, at Gain I changed your edit of Sep. 28, 2012 as per here. Let me know if you disagree with any of the changes. "Mean radiation intensity from an antenna" and "radiation intensity from an isotropic antenna" are synonymous so your "isotropic" is not the issue, only "lossless" = 100% efficient which you omitted. Re the change from receiving to transmitting, the definitions are customarily given for the latter. Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 06:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
I, Maslesha, as a Wiki member and contributor, hereby wish to thank You, and then thank You again, and thank You once more, for your diligence and effort in making the Wikipedia a better, less biased, and more reliable resource than any other resource people around the world can use. It is equally a surprise and a true honor to find such a dedicated and unbiased author, from which the Wikipedia can only expect to flourish. Live long and prosper! :) Maslesha ( talk) 23:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC) |
Thank you so much! I've never gotten an award on WP, I've always toiled in obscurity. :) -- Chetvorno TALK 14:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry to have caused you so much concern. Please see new thread at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Thanks. • Lingzhi♦ (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The usual practice is to retain the url of the original site and have the archive as an additional link, not remove the original altogether as you did
here. Personally, I add the archive manually (
example) but it can also be added in the cite template using the archive-url=
and archive-date=
parameters. One sets dead-url=no
to tell the template that the original link still works and should be used rather than the archive. If the link goes dead in the future, then change to dead-url=yes
.
Spinning
Spark
13:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I really like the cleanup and expansion. The article makes allot more sense now. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 15:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I also appreciate your efforts to make the article on wireless power more understandable for the general audience, and I also like your clean-up. However, many researchers into the subject, most notably in the Japanese JAXA and NASA in the US, were left out. I am sure you'll be able to find them after searching the relevant published papers databases. My issue here is that Dr. /info/en/?search=Marin_Solja%C4%8Di%C4%87 and his company, /info/en/?search=WiTricity were given an undue amount of attention, almost like an advertisement(!) as if he (and his company) were at the forefront of the wireless energy transfer research. In reality, their results were no better than those of the other researchers. There were no breakthroughs made by Soljacic's experiments, so I believe he should be mentioned, but not so ostentatious, as if the others didn't contribute to the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maslesha ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe Mr. Soljacic, and his company, should be mentioned no more than once. He deserves to be mentioned, but not as a "leader" in the field. Rather as a contributor, among many others. Any more than that would, imho, constitute an advertising. Unless his team manages to do something exceptional, his contributions are about at the same level as the previous art. Thus, at this point, I'd recommend a "trim" of the article, and to keep it at that, until something noteworthy appears.
I believe this is incorrect: "A semiconductor crystal (detector) which extracts the audio signal (modulation) from the radio frequency carrier wave."
The diode only rectifies the voltage. It does not extract the audio part.
If the frequency of the applied voltage to a diode is 100,000 hz , the passed frequency will be rectified but at the same frequency, 100,000 hz.
The extraction of the audio frequencies from the rectified carrier frequency takes place in the headphones, which are of an electro-mechanical nature and are made to respond to 10 - 10,000 hz. The 100,000 hz carrier frequency can drive the earphone but it can only respond at audio frequencies. They cannot respond at 100,000 hz. Zedshort ( talk) 00:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
No, with the bypass capacitor the pulses of carrier current are bypassed to ground and the voltage across the capacitor applied to the earphone is the pure audio waveform outlined by the peaks (curve C). The capacitor acts as the filter instead of the earphone; that's it's only function. The pulses of current from the diode charge the capacitor up to the dotted line and the capacitor voltage follows the slow audio variations, "smoothing" the carrier variations out. -- Chetvorno TALK 00:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Here are some supporting sources that it is the diode that produces the audio, not the earphone:
Zedshort ( talk) 20:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Note none of these references give any role in demodulation to the earphone or speaker except translating the audio signal to sound; some don't even mention it. -- Chetvorno TALK 00:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Some apologies, I didn't notice your edit [2] just before mine, please excuse the term "bogus". I saw the text, thought it was old material, wondered how I missed it, and reworked it. I have been working on related articles and ID'ed the " Fred Peterson" involved as Frederick Peterson, a neurologist who does not seem to have a connection with Edison but does have a continual connection with Columbia University, where Brown's dog demo's were done. Also several sources show the electric chairs invention and final design was by Southwick and company (Fell). The Edison/Brown roll was to finalize the "AC or DC?" question and how much voltage (they pushed AC... go figure ;)). There could be a real Peterson/Brown/Edison connection here, they were all a little too "buddy-buddy" but need a ref on that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 16:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For your large contributions to knowledge of Tesla coils and all things that "resonate". Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 14:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC) |
Thank you very much! Although I have to admit that in my case the word "tireless" translates to "unemployed". -- Chetvorno TALK 18:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Chetvorno, I noticed you defined digital signals in analog signal. I've extended and hopefully clarified your definition, and I would be interested in any comments you might have on that.
There's been some question about what a digital signal really is over at Talk:digital signal, and there's been a proposal to turn it into a disambiguation page. I thought you might be interested in the discussion. GliderMaven ( talk) 07:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
No longer in my head [3]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 03:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
You checked in this note in Sentinel "The term "Crazy Ivan" refers to a submarine maneuver and has nothing to do with missiles". That is not true, the term was used to describe rouge launches. I have added a ref to demonstrate this. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 12:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!
Sent of behalf of
Nikkimaria for
The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Communications satellite may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 12:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
According to WP's Neutrodyne article, it is a special type of TRF rather than a separate type of radio receiver. Glrx ( talk) 02:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
You have made a lot of useful contributions here even if you deleted some of mine (no offense taken, they were poorly introduced). In the non-radiative near-field section, I have planned to add soon some brief considerations concerning coupling coefficients and also to explain simply how resonance associated to large Q-factors improves the performances without modifying the link itself (the coupling coefficient depends only on geometric consideration or equivalently on self and mutal inductance or capacitance). I also think that the resonant induction could be introduced in a simpler manner (two distant coils in series with two capacitors), as it is used in most application (Witricity uses combined air transformers for impedance adaptation reasons nothing more). The same schematic is used in many recent papers for coupled capacitors (whatever the physical implementation). By the way the transverse capacitive configuration (not known as such) was introduced for power transfer by a New-Zealand guy a long time ago, but recent articles do not even mention him, can you help to restore his historical contribution. Finally they have been recently a few proposal based on radiative near-field techniques in the GHz frame (using for instance phase conjugation technique), they deserve according to me a section in the Wireless Power page. Besides, I am thinking on a Galinean Electromagnetism page that could be used for an elegant introduction of Quasi-Electrostatics and Quasi-Magnetostatics, your contributions will be appreciated. Henri BONDAR ( talk)
Hi Chet, My error in not signing in to edit the Project Diana page. The edits are factual.
The presence of the Ocean-Monmouth Amateur Radio Club on the Diana Site can be verified via both organizations websites [1] and [2]
The site is maintained by OMARC. OMARC was at that location before InfoAge was created under the supervision of the Department of Defense BRAC program. The arrangement was to mow lawns, paint buildings, pay for utilities, and be the custodians of the site.
You can verify location on Google, the IRS non-profit website, and the local phone directory.
Regards, Martin Flynn
N2mo ( talk) 21:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
... [4] yes, but distributed models are also represented and analyzed by elements. Spinning Spark 18:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Chetvorno, I think it's good to add back "Society must have laws", but the first four references come from newspaper reporters and bloggers. For the purposes of a formal (or informal) application of logic, these sources are Wikipedia unreliable and should be removed. ~~ BlueMist ( talk) 00:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I followed up at WP:RMT. Any comments? — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 00:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Much better [5], I was getting lost there myself. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 17:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Please check the torque equation for the [ slider mechanism]. It is not correct as it now is.
The mechanical advantage of a crank, the ratio between the force on the connecting rod and the torque on the shaft, varies throughout the crank's cycle. The relationship between the two is approximately:
where is the torque and F is the force on the connecting rod.
Surgbc ( talk) 11:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all your edits. Glrx ( talk) 19:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I am doing a small school project on PAVE PAWS. There is lots of confusing data online on where there are ACTIVE PAVE PAWS sites? I believe the only active site using the orginal PAVE PAWS site is 6SWS at Cape Cod. Is this correct? Thank you Terence starzl ( talk) 21:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)