![]() | 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 |
Hi, those words you just changed on EMR were meant to all modify the word "radiation", so now in effect it says "radio waves radiation" instead of "radio frequency radiation". But I realize the grammatic construction was easy to misread so maybe it still needs work. DavRosen ( talk) 17:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
An engineering barnstar for Chetvorno! |
Your work making engineering and technology articles more accurate yet more understandable for the general reader is greatly appreciated. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC) |
Sorry, was late replying. Thanks very much, Dicklyon. I keep running across your excellent work all over WP. Here's to more great WP fun! -- Chetvorno TALK 04:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for expanding my section on Atomic Wrist Watch! GeorgeV73GT ( talk) 22:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC) |
Thank you, George, your addition of the atomic watch was fascinating. Can't believe they make them that small. Cheers. (slurp) Goes down smooth! (slurp, belch) -- Chetvorno TALK 04:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
You know, it never occurred to me to click on the little blue box at the top of my screen. It was nice to see all the thanks you've given me over the years. (Quite a surprise too.) I just wanted to stop by and return the favor. Your efforts in making technical info accessible to the general reader is awesome! Thank you! Zaereth ( talk) 01:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
" Resonance also occurs in quantum mechanics"
Sure, but does this description apply to quantum systems without misleading? I think it would require an explicit qualification as a "semiclassical heuristic" Furthermore, only one subsection of the article addresses quantum systems, and the rest of it isn't now qualified by the "classical" restriction. Layzeeboi ( talk) 18:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The Tesla punch list, yours and on the GA page, looks like good ideas and something we can all work towards. BTW can I recommend 1891-1894 here? Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 20:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Chetvorno. I am Japanese. I found a problem with your description regarding Tesla coil. It shold be correct to describe the resonance frequency as follows.
The resonant frequencies of the primary f 1 is determined by the inductance and the capacitance of the primary side, and the resonant frequencies of the secondary f 2 is determined by the short-circuit inductance and the capacitance of the secondary side.
Thus the condition for resonance between primary and secondary is
It is necessary to fix other descriptions relatedly too.-- Neotesla ( talk) 02:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
In the secondary side, there are 2 kind of different resonant frequencies. One is called anti-resonant frequency (parallel resonant frequency), and the other is called resonant frequency (serial resonant frequency). Please refer to the picture analyzed by the measuring instrument. [1] Can you see that the peaks and valleys are in sets? Peek is the anti-resonant frequency and valley is the resonant frequency. Tesla coils should be driven at this valley frequency.
There is one matter I would like to ask of you. The primary side circuit of Tesla coil has series resonance type and parallel resonance type, but your description is parallel resonance type. Actually, parallel resonance type is called voltage resonance circuit. It is bad combination with the resonant circuit on the secondary side. Would you please rewrite this diagram to serial resonance type if possible?-- Neotesla ( talk) 02:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I see that Glow discharge is on your to do list, so I thought I might ask you to please check what I have done to the article. You made many good comments on the talk page, and I think I addressed some of them. I will watch this spot, as well as the Talk:Glow discharge page in case you decide to respond. Thanks. Comfr ( talk) 20:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed that the merge template you put on nonlinear element is still there. You could make the merge now as no one objected to it, but if you don't want to do that yourself then I suggest that you place a {{ merge from}} templage on the electrical element page to better advertise it and draw the attention of others to the more obscure page. Spinning Spark 16:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Good day, I have added a section to the Displacement current talk page Talk:Displacement current#Untrue assumptions in the “Current in capacitors” sub section. It regards a section of the Displacement Current article that contains a figure that you created, hence, you may be interested. Constant314 ( talk) 17:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
FYI: Talk:Watt balance. Birdfern ( talk) 19:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Shortwave radio receiver ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Originally named world radio receiver, this newly-minted article has promise, but needs some love: it reads like a bad English translation of a foreign language, and the sourcing is a little misguided. I may get to fixing it eventually, but thought you may be interested in improving it in the short term. Cheers, - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Want to take a crack at this article? Like, I'm a high school hobbyist with a breadboard and an inductor. Demonstrate the effect of magnetic reactance. So he reads that. Than what? Sbalfour ( talk) 21:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Chetvorno. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Chet, your explanation here is about right for engineers, but might leave mathematicians and physicists wondering why this makes sense. I try to explain better in my book, using the concept of eigenfunctions of linear systems, and how constraining to real solutions gives a result equivalent to taking the real part, but without that non-analytic real part operation. See sections 6.8 Eigenfunctions and Transfer Functions, 8.7 Keeping It Real, and 12.1 Waves in Uniform Linear Media. I'll be happy to email you a URL to a free online PDF if you don't have that or the book already. Dicklyon ( talk) 21:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I've removed Shielding Back EMF and have submitted a new article which I hope will be more appropriate in its stand alone location.
Vinyasi ( talk) 02:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your phased array animation, which was recently used on Ars Technica. [6] Certes ( talk) 01:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Thnx for correcting me. Actually I didn't knew I was changing the whole page, so sorry. But I do want to know how to create new page on wiki. Plz Tell me 69 is best ( talk) 16:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
And a Happy New Year. Thanks, Chet, for all you do around Wikipedia. I hope your holiday season is a joyous one and the coming year brings many days of happiness and wonder. (By the way, if you don't celebrate Christmas then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, Merry Makar Sankranti, Enlightening Bodhi Day, Merry Yule, Happy Tenno no tanjobi, or fill in whatever holiday is your preference.) Zaereth ( talk) 00:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in ( here), I'll talk about this below - but first:
The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:
{{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}}
- if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.{{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}}
- if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.
I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.
So, I've decided to create " WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.
We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!
And... that's it!
I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I'm French and I do not speak English (thank you at google translate !) but I was a university professor in electrical engineering and active on wikipedia in French. Today I opened the same lamp. It is a DC motor. I even think it's the engine corresponding to the following reference: "DC motor RF-310 CA-10550". You can see http://www.funtainmotor.com/data/upload/file/201807/d5fbd15a519a7712a7da49bf2f513c1b.pdf I wondered about the need for the rectifier. I check: you can turn the crank in both directions and get a supply voltage always in the right direction. You should accept my modification. PNLL ( talk) 15:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
There's a mention of in the Squarial article about the technology being based on resonant cavities. From what I remember (still have one around somewhere), it was a microstrip patch antenna that had the elements printed on a film which was then placed on a piece of foam dielectric over a metal ground plane. The description of it as being based on resonant cavities doesn't seem quite right. It is essentially a micostrip patch antenna rather than the set of resonant cavities described in the article. The description of the antenna seems to be quite wrong as it was a microstrip patch array that was designed for the polarisation used with the BSB satellites. There was a transition from the microstrip to the waveguide on the integral LNB. The description of the technology in the article seems to ahve been written by someone who has never seen the inside of a Squarial and doesn't understand the RF losses that would be incurred by what they are describing. Could you take a look at the description in the article and see if it makes sense in RF engineering terms? (The wire probe in each resonant cavity with the signal being conducted to the LNB is quite weird and not backed up by reality.) Jmccormac ( talk) 21:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Diathermy into
Medical applications of radio frequency. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk) 00:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Divergence theorem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vector ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
In this edit, were you thinking of this? Spinning Spark 12:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Chetvorno, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia, and for all your help at various articles. My you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth ( talk) 08:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Two-way radio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pilot ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 10:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
To your recent comment on my "talk" page, at: /info/en/?search=User_talk:70.89.176.249
70.89.176.249 ( talk) 03:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nauen Transmitter Station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radiogram ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 14:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
"reducing eddy currents were known long before ZBD" So why can't you see any laminating in the patents pictures of earlier pre-ZBD transformer developers? It is a very important question.-- Liltender ( talk) 20:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC) It seems (according to their patents)clearly, that the earlier trasformer developers did not know about it....-- Liltender ( talk) 07:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC) I'm still asking you, where are your proofs for these relevations? None of your links can show your statements. Divided iron wires are not equal with laminated iron plates (the real lamination). Only plate form is very effective, iron wires can reduce eddy current only slightly. So the real laminated iron plates (which were effective) were invented by the ZBD team.-- Liltender ( talk) 22:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm still asking you, where are your proofs for these relevations? None of your links can show your statements. Divided iron wires are not equal with laminated iron plates (the real lamination). Only plate form is very effective, iron wires can reduce eddy current only slightly. So the real laminated iron plates (which were effective) were invented by the ZBD team.
I'm still can't believe that British or American researcher could really understand electromaginetism in theoretical like the ZBD team understand it. ZBDteam still sold dosens of basic mathematical formulas related to electricity for American or British companies, because the lack of theoretical understanding electrotechnology, thus Americans and British were unable to produce effective electronics products without buying math. formulas in their factories.--
Liltender (
talk) 12:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for your answer in the War of the currents talkpage!-- Liltender ( talk) 13:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you please revert the article like in it"s original version, I have noticed that you reverted changes made by user SandroMilosevic but not from Sheldonium — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonewithreason ( talk • contribs) 23:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The version last made by editor limit-theorem he reverted the changes that were made today but the last version of the article is made by sheldonium, user sheldonium already tried to change the article more than 3 times today without consensus
Would you be interested in taking a look at Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom? It is currently at Peer Review here. I'm intending to take this to Featured Article status and your comments would be welcome. Spinning Spark 15:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thx for images and new section in Filed line. I have similar page in wikibooks. I have copied your method . Can you look at it ? Do you see any errors ? Can you expand it ? TIA-- Adam majewski ( talk) 09:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
If I am reading the Thomas Commerford Martin book right (page 484), Tesla's May 20, 1891 American Institute of Electrical Engineers Columbia College lecture Tesla Coil is sitting right in front of the Egg of Columbus with two smaller earlier versions sitting just to the left. May be something to add to Tesla coil. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 01:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Austin transformer, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Choke and Impedance ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:War_of_the_currents#Statement_added_to_article_gives_undue_credit_to_ZBD_for_developing_core_lamination 09:51, 29 March 2020 Thank you!
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Load bank, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battery ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Chetvorno Can you please remove Miroslav Cosovic link from the sources. I mean I do understand your point and I agree with you over the nationalistic dispute over Tesla ,but puting Miroslav Cosovic in context is too much. Since the guy is 1. uneducated ,never finished any college 2. The way he writes his books are just unsourced provocations with only goal to make controversy calling historical figures "crazy" "pedophiles" etc. 3. He was only mentioned through very short period of time after that every historian in Region (including Croatia and Serbia) called him ridiculous and 4. If you qoute him ,you could easily qoute me if I would say that "Tesla comes from Mars" since there's no really any weight behind his "books" , other sources you provided show real dispute between goverments, officials and so on ,but this guy doesn't belong here. User:Theonewithreason ( Theonewithreason) 22:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Dear Chetvorno. I would like to hear the reason why you are removing the explanation of the resonant transformer. I'm continuously supplying more than hundreds of millions of resonant transformers worldwide. -- Neotesla ( talk) 01:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The recent change in the description of the DRSSTC is not correct. The capacitor charged with DC is the power supply filter capacitor, not the capacitor in series with the primary coil, that is after the switching devices. The power supply and the switches act as an AC voltage source in series with the primary LC circuit. Acmq ( talk) 01:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Atomic orbital, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nucleus.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
odd that you delete facts that contradict your "facts" that are wrong - time to let your ego go and accept that you were wrong
just because facts to not match your knowledge? of a subject, and do not match your narrative and agenda does not mean you should deleted them
I think you should state your beliefs up front, once you admit you are history revisionist, everyone can ignore your work as incomplete
you should really do more research on the subjects you are writing about, you are misleading everyone with your narrative that does not match the facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:300:330:ED40:DB2A:2C71:3011 ( talk) 02:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Wouldn't the primary circuit need it's own variable capacitor (as opposed to only relying on the antenna's capacitance) in order to be able to be tuned to the same frequency as the secondary? ZFT ( talk) 03:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Resonator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Open circuit.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lens antenna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paraffin.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I am reaching out to several experienced Wikipedians regarding an impasse that is being reached in an RfC on the article Introduction to thermodynamic entropy, formerly titled Introduction to entropy.
In my opinion, the discussion is being dominated by physicist–editors who do not like the introduction as it currently stands (15 November 2020) or numerous recent attempts at an introduction that is friendly and accessible to the lay reader. These editors seek a rigorous introduction, the suggestions for which have been very unpalatable to me as a science communicator (e.g., "Entropy is a quantitative guide to the unavailability, due to inevitable natural inefficiency, of the intrinsic energy of a body of matter or radiation, for thermodynamic work that can be harnessed to do mechanical work outside the body"). The article has a long history of complaints about it being overly technical, and matters are only getting worse.
On the Talk page you will find several long sections on the RfC. If you wish to comment, perhaps start a new section if another editor has not already done so. Thank you for your time. -Jordgette [talk] 18:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Can you please change that Nikola Tesla was Croatian not Serbian investor? Thank you for understanding :) Nikola Tesla je hrvat111 ( talk) 17:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Quick question on your recent edit in Magnetic field: is it necessary to say "magnetic materials", shouldn't it suffice to say "materials" because every substance is affected by the field in one or another way, i.e. every substance is a diamagnet (plus whatever else nature designed it to be)? Somehow, I find the term "magnetic materials" misleading, as if there are any "nonmagnetic materials". Even frogs are magnetic, according to the Nobel laureate Geim. Why not go to a more fundamental level and say it's charges and spins? And call magnetized materials simply magnets (something we didn't have to magnetize but found in nature, otherwise we're defining the magnetic field in terms of something we had to magnetize using the very same field)? Thnx, Ponor ( talk) 08:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you may have noticed I've made some recent edits on this article—I want to some further work on ensuring it is accessible, complete, and perhaps at GA standard. Is it OK with you if I add a section listing the sources, and cite them using Harvard-style references? Amitchell125 ( talk) 19:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
You may well know more about this subject and Wikipedia conventions than me, but I consider your reverting of a morning's work without discussion to be less than satisfactory. -- TedColes ( talk) 13:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Band-pass filter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Circuit.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Saw that you had removed some of my input on Australian reflex receivers. I have no problem with that really, and I appreciate that it was made as a well-considered edit and not just an 'undo'. I did get carried away with the citations but that was because I kept finding more and more reflex models particularly in the late 40s and early 50s; so reducing that number of citations is perfectly understandable. However, I suspect that Australia really was the 'last stand' of reflex receivers in mass production.Prior to what I had added, the article ended pretty much in the 1930s with the reflex as "revived again in simple portable tube radios in the 1930s" (in the lead paragraph). The bit I added was uniquely about Australia. What happened in Australia is that in the immediate post WWII period there were many models of superheterodyne reflex receivers produced (largely to save cost and components still affected by wartime shortages) from multiple manufacturers. The models were small mains-powered table top superheterodyne radios. Not sure this revival in reflex receivers did happen in other countries, about that same post-WWII time, but if it did I am happy to stand corrected. TrimmerinWiki ( talk) 05:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Electric motor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armature.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Electric motor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prime mover.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:54, 18 April 2021 (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 |
Hi, those words you just changed on EMR were meant to all modify the word "radiation", so now in effect it says "radio waves radiation" instead of "radio frequency radiation". But I realize the grammatic construction was easy to misread so maybe it still needs work. DavRosen ( talk) 17:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
An engineering barnstar for Chetvorno! |
Your work making engineering and technology articles more accurate yet more understandable for the general reader is greatly appreciated. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC) |
Sorry, was late replying. Thanks very much, Dicklyon. I keep running across your excellent work all over WP. Here's to more great WP fun! -- Chetvorno TALK 04:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for expanding my section on Atomic Wrist Watch! GeorgeV73GT ( talk) 22:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC) |
Thank you, George, your addition of the atomic watch was fascinating. Can't believe they make them that small. Cheers. (slurp) Goes down smooth! (slurp, belch) -- Chetvorno TALK 04:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
You know, it never occurred to me to click on the little blue box at the top of my screen. It was nice to see all the thanks you've given me over the years. (Quite a surprise too.) I just wanted to stop by and return the favor. Your efforts in making technical info accessible to the general reader is awesome! Thank you! Zaereth ( talk) 01:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
" Resonance also occurs in quantum mechanics"
Sure, but does this description apply to quantum systems without misleading? I think it would require an explicit qualification as a "semiclassical heuristic" Furthermore, only one subsection of the article addresses quantum systems, and the rest of it isn't now qualified by the "classical" restriction. Layzeeboi ( talk) 18:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The Tesla punch list, yours and on the GA page, looks like good ideas and something we can all work towards. BTW can I recommend 1891-1894 here? Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 20:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Chetvorno. I am Japanese. I found a problem with your description regarding Tesla coil. It shold be correct to describe the resonance frequency as follows.
The resonant frequencies of the primary f 1 is determined by the inductance and the capacitance of the primary side, and the resonant frequencies of the secondary f 2 is determined by the short-circuit inductance and the capacitance of the secondary side.
Thus the condition for resonance between primary and secondary is
It is necessary to fix other descriptions relatedly too.-- Neotesla ( talk) 02:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
In the secondary side, there are 2 kind of different resonant frequencies. One is called anti-resonant frequency (parallel resonant frequency), and the other is called resonant frequency (serial resonant frequency). Please refer to the picture analyzed by the measuring instrument. [1] Can you see that the peaks and valleys are in sets? Peek is the anti-resonant frequency and valley is the resonant frequency. Tesla coils should be driven at this valley frequency.
There is one matter I would like to ask of you. The primary side circuit of Tesla coil has series resonance type and parallel resonance type, but your description is parallel resonance type. Actually, parallel resonance type is called voltage resonance circuit. It is bad combination with the resonant circuit on the secondary side. Would you please rewrite this diagram to serial resonance type if possible?-- Neotesla ( talk) 02:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I see that Glow discharge is on your to do list, so I thought I might ask you to please check what I have done to the article. You made many good comments on the talk page, and I think I addressed some of them. I will watch this spot, as well as the Talk:Glow discharge page in case you decide to respond. Thanks. Comfr ( talk) 20:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed that the merge template you put on nonlinear element is still there. You could make the merge now as no one objected to it, but if you don't want to do that yourself then I suggest that you place a {{ merge from}} templage on the electrical element page to better advertise it and draw the attention of others to the more obscure page. Spinning Spark 16:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Good day, I have added a section to the Displacement current talk page Talk:Displacement current#Untrue assumptions in the “Current in capacitors” sub section. It regards a section of the Displacement Current article that contains a figure that you created, hence, you may be interested. Constant314 ( talk) 17:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
FYI: Talk:Watt balance. Birdfern ( talk) 19:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Shortwave radio receiver ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Originally named world radio receiver, this newly-minted article has promise, but needs some love: it reads like a bad English translation of a foreign language, and the sourcing is a little misguided. I may get to fixing it eventually, but thought you may be interested in improving it in the short term. Cheers, - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Want to take a crack at this article? Like, I'm a high school hobbyist with a breadboard and an inductor. Demonstrate the effect of magnetic reactance. So he reads that. Than what? Sbalfour ( talk) 21:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Chetvorno. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Chet, your explanation here is about right for engineers, but might leave mathematicians and physicists wondering why this makes sense. I try to explain better in my book, using the concept of eigenfunctions of linear systems, and how constraining to real solutions gives a result equivalent to taking the real part, but without that non-analytic real part operation. See sections 6.8 Eigenfunctions and Transfer Functions, 8.7 Keeping It Real, and 12.1 Waves in Uniform Linear Media. I'll be happy to email you a URL to a free online PDF if you don't have that or the book already. Dicklyon ( talk) 21:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I've removed Shielding Back EMF and have submitted a new article which I hope will be more appropriate in its stand alone location.
Vinyasi ( talk) 02:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your phased array animation, which was recently used on Ars Technica. [6] Certes ( talk) 01:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Thnx for correcting me. Actually I didn't knew I was changing the whole page, so sorry. But I do want to know how to create new page on wiki. Plz Tell me 69 is best ( talk) 16:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
And a Happy New Year. Thanks, Chet, for all you do around Wikipedia. I hope your holiday season is a joyous one and the coming year brings many days of happiness and wonder. (By the way, if you don't celebrate Christmas then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, Merry Makar Sankranti, Enlightening Bodhi Day, Merry Yule, Happy Tenno no tanjobi, or fill in whatever holiday is your preference.) Zaereth ( talk) 00:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in ( here), I'll talk about this below - but first:
The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:
{{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}}
- if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.{{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}}
- if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.
I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.
So, I've decided to create " WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.
We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!
And... that's it!
I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I'm French and I do not speak English (thank you at google translate !) but I was a university professor in electrical engineering and active on wikipedia in French. Today I opened the same lamp. It is a DC motor. I even think it's the engine corresponding to the following reference: "DC motor RF-310 CA-10550". You can see http://www.funtainmotor.com/data/upload/file/201807/d5fbd15a519a7712a7da49bf2f513c1b.pdf I wondered about the need for the rectifier. I check: you can turn the crank in both directions and get a supply voltage always in the right direction. You should accept my modification. PNLL ( talk) 15:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
There's a mention of in the Squarial article about the technology being based on resonant cavities. From what I remember (still have one around somewhere), it was a microstrip patch antenna that had the elements printed on a film which was then placed on a piece of foam dielectric over a metal ground plane. The description of it as being based on resonant cavities doesn't seem quite right. It is essentially a micostrip patch antenna rather than the set of resonant cavities described in the article. The description of the antenna seems to be quite wrong as it was a microstrip patch array that was designed for the polarisation used with the BSB satellites. There was a transition from the microstrip to the waveguide on the integral LNB. The description of the technology in the article seems to ahve been written by someone who has never seen the inside of a Squarial and doesn't understand the RF losses that would be incurred by what they are describing. Could you take a look at the description in the article and see if it makes sense in RF engineering terms? (The wire probe in each resonant cavity with the signal being conducted to the LNB is quite weird and not backed up by reality.) Jmccormac ( talk) 21:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Diathermy into
Medical applications of radio frequency. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk) 00:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Divergence theorem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vector ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
In this edit, were you thinking of this? Spinning Spark 12:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Chetvorno, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia, and for all your help at various articles. My you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth ( talk) 08:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Two-way radio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pilot ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 10:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
To your recent comment on my "talk" page, at: /info/en/?search=User_talk:70.89.176.249
70.89.176.249 ( talk) 03:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nauen Transmitter Station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radiogram ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 14:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
"reducing eddy currents were known long before ZBD" So why can't you see any laminating in the patents pictures of earlier pre-ZBD transformer developers? It is a very important question.-- Liltender ( talk) 20:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC) It seems (according to their patents)clearly, that the earlier trasformer developers did not know about it....-- Liltender ( talk) 07:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC) I'm still asking you, where are your proofs for these relevations? None of your links can show your statements. Divided iron wires are not equal with laminated iron plates (the real lamination). Only plate form is very effective, iron wires can reduce eddy current only slightly. So the real laminated iron plates (which were effective) were invented by the ZBD team.-- Liltender ( talk) 22:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm still asking you, where are your proofs for these relevations? None of your links can show your statements. Divided iron wires are not equal with laminated iron plates (the real lamination). Only plate form is very effective, iron wires can reduce eddy current only slightly. So the real laminated iron plates (which were effective) were invented by the ZBD team.
I'm still can't believe that British or American researcher could really understand electromaginetism in theoretical like the ZBD team understand it. ZBDteam still sold dosens of basic mathematical formulas related to electricity for American or British companies, because the lack of theoretical understanding electrotechnology, thus Americans and British were unable to produce effective electronics products without buying math. formulas in their factories.--
Liltender (
talk) 12:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for your answer in the War of the currents talkpage!-- Liltender ( talk) 13:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you please revert the article like in it"s original version, I have noticed that you reverted changes made by user SandroMilosevic but not from Sheldonium — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonewithreason ( talk • contribs) 23:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The version last made by editor limit-theorem he reverted the changes that were made today but the last version of the article is made by sheldonium, user sheldonium already tried to change the article more than 3 times today without consensus
Would you be interested in taking a look at Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom? It is currently at Peer Review here. I'm intending to take this to Featured Article status and your comments would be welcome. Spinning Spark 15:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thx for images and new section in Filed line. I have similar page in wikibooks. I have copied your method . Can you look at it ? Do you see any errors ? Can you expand it ? TIA-- Adam majewski ( talk) 09:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
If I am reading the Thomas Commerford Martin book right (page 484), Tesla's May 20, 1891 American Institute of Electrical Engineers Columbia College lecture Tesla Coil is sitting right in front of the Egg of Columbus with two smaller earlier versions sitting just to the left. May be something to add to Tesla coil. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 01:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Austin transformer, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Choke and Impedance ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:War_of_the_currents#Statement_added_to_article_gives_undue_credit_to_ZBD_for_developing_core_lamination 09:51, 29 March 2020 Thank you!
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Load bank, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battery ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Chetvorno Can you please remove Miroslav Cosovic link from the sources. I mean I do understand your point and I agree with you over the nationalistic dispute over Tesla ,but puting Miroslav Cosovic in context is too much. Since the guy is 1. uneducated ,never finished any college 2. The way he writes his books are just unsourced provocations with only goal to make controversy calling historical figures "crazy" "pedophiles" etc. 3. He was only mentioned through very short period of time after that every historian in Region (including Croatia and Serbia) called him ridiculous and 4. If you qoute him ,you could easily qoute me if I would say that "Tesla comes from Mars" since there's no really any weight behind his "books" , other sources you provided show real dispute between goverments, officials and so on ,but this guy doesn't belong here. User:Theonewithreason ( Theonewithreason) 22:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Dear Chetvorno. I would like to hear the reason why you are removing the explanation of the resonant transformer. I'm continuously supplying more than hundreds of millions of resonant transformers worldwide. -- Neotesla ( talk) 01:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The recent change in the description of the DRSSTC is not correct. The capacitor charged with DC is the power supply filter capacitor, not the capacitor in series with the primary coil, that is after the switching devices. The power supply and the switches act as an AC voltage source in series with the primary LC circuit. Acmq ( talk) 01:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Atomic orbital, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nucleus.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
odd that you delete facts that contradict your "facts" that are wrong - time to let your ego go and accept that you were wrong
just because facts to not match your knowledge? of a subject, and do not match your narrative and agenda does not mean you should deleted them
I think you should state your beliefs up front, once you admit you are history revisionist, everyone can ignore your work as incomplete
you should really do more research on the subjects you are writing about, you are misleading everyone with your narrative that does not match the facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:300:330:ED40:DB2A:2C71:3011 ( talk) 02:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Wouldn't the primary circuit need it's own variable capacitor (as opposed to only relying on the antenna's capacitance) in order to be able to be tuned to the same frequency as the secondary? ZFT ( talk) 03:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Resonator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Open circuit.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lens antenna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paraffin.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I am reaching out to several experienced Wikipedians regarding an impasse that is being reached in an RfC on the article Introduction to thermodynamic entropy, formerly titled Introduction to entropy.
In my opinion, the discussion is being dominated by physicist–editors who do not like the introduction as it currently stands (15 November 2020) or numerous recent attempts at an introduction that is friendly and accessible to the lay reader. These editors seek a rigorous introduction, the suggestions for which have been very unpalatable to me as a science communicator (e.g., "Entropy is a quantitative guide to the unavailability, due to inevitable natural inefficiency, of the intrinsic energy of a body of matter or radiation, for thermodynamic work that can be harnessed to do mechanical work outside the body"). The article has a long history of complaints about it being overly technical, and matters are only getting worse.
On the Talk page you will find several long sections on the RfC. If you wish to comment, perhaps start a new section if another editor has not already done so. Thank you for your time. -Jordgette [talk] 18:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Can you please change that Nikola Tesla was Croatian not Serbian investor? Thank you for understanding :) Nikola Tesla je hrvat111 ( talk) 17:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Quick question on your recent edit in Magnetic field: is it necessary to say "magnetic materials", shouldn't it suffice to say "materials" because every substance is affected by the field in one or another way, i.e. every substance is a diamagnet (plus whatever else nature designed it to be)? Somehow, I find the term "magnetic materials" misleading, as if there are any "nonmagnetic materials". Even frogs are magnetic, according to the Nobel laureate Geim. Why not go to a more fundamental level and say it's charges and spins? And call magnetized materials simply magnets (something we didn't have to magnetize but found in nature, otherwise we're defining the magnetic field in terms of something we had to magnetize using the very same field)? Thnx, Ponor ( talk) 08:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you may have noticed I've made some recent edits on this article—I want to some further work on ensuring it is accessible, complete, and perhaps at GA standard. Is it OK with you if I add a section listing the sources, and cite them using Harvard-style references? Amitchell125 ( talk) 19:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
You may well know more about this subject and Wikipedia conventions than me, but I consider your reverting of a morning's work without discussion to be less than satisfactory. -- TedColes ( talk) 13:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Band-pass filter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Circuit.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Saw that you had removed some of my input on Australian reflex receivers. I have no problem with that really, and I appreciate that it was made as a well-considered edit and not just an 'undo'. I did get carried away with the citations but that was because I kept finding more and more reflex models particularly in the late 40s and early 50s; so reducing that number of citations is perfectly understandable. However, I suspect that Australia really was the 'last stand' of reflex receivers in mass production.Prior to what I had added, the article ended pretty much in the 1930s with the reflex as "revived again in simple portable tube radios in the 1930s" (in the lead paragraph). The bit I added was uniquely about Australia. What happened in Australia is that in the immediate post WWII period there were many models of superheterodyne reflex receivers produced (largely to save cost and components still affected by wartime shortages) from multiple manufacturers. The models were small mains-powered table top superheterodyne radios. Not sure this revival in reflex receivers did happen in other countries, about that same post-WWII time, but if it did I am happy to stand corrected. TrimmerinWiki ( talk) 05:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Electric motor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armature.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Electric motor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prime mover.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)