User talk:Steve carlson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Polysubstance abuse[edit]

AfD nomination of Polysubstance abuse[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg
An article that you have been involved in editing, Polysubstance abuse, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polysubstance abuse. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Thanks for the scarab artifact article edit[edit]

Fender valve designs from the 1950s and 1960s[edit]

Hmm, how did you get intersted in valve amplification for guitars?

The Fender Twin page is wrong in more places than I can count. Moreover, a Page for the Bassman should come first as it is the basis of design for many other fender amps: e,g, the Super reverb, the Fender 100 head, The Bassman Head of the 60s, and the Twin. Of course, the TWIN has twice the power section that the Bassman has, but the design is almost identical. In fact tube amp designs for guitars vary between manufactures very little in terms od raw circuit design. The tonal differences come more from the output transformers, speakers preamp active feedback tone control and the cabinent.

I owned a 1956 Bassman that came with almost identical circuitry and the tube compliment chart specified 5881s -The military version of a 6L6. (Army surplus, Leo saved bread). Other than "I saw this, I owned one and I KNOW electronics well", what proof do I have? The guy who wrote it lists NO citations and his use of dry passive language is just an amateur dodge for the clique that runs Wiki.

BTW: Not even an encyclopeodia should be written in the passive voice. Only parking tickets, international treaties and FAC reinsurance contracts are written in the passive voice. I'd love to have an English 101 prof. go over a few Wiki pages and explain what good plain writing is about. Perhaps a Strunk and White should be required reading? People like to write in passive because they think it sounds 'more official'. However, it only sounds more OFFICIOUS. When you are writing something, you are writing to an audience of a of INDIVIDUALS humans. If I addressed you in the passive, you would think I was more than a tad machine-like and boring.

But I digressed. Digression is a dangerous thing. So I'll do it some more. The Fender Twin has ALWAYS used 4 6L6s or 4 5881s in push-pull, Class A/B. And what the hell is a "longtails pair phase inverter?". -Slang that surely means something to someone and should be explained! Along with "PHASE INVERTER"! otherwise the article is just dry words running like water past the viewer's eyes. The reader can parrot the words and sound intelligent...until someone who really knows electronics asks him, what the heck is a "longtail" phase inverter? Phase inverters do one thing. They SPLIT the signal phase (also called PHASE SPLITTERS) into two or four seperate signals -each with 180 or 90degrees of the 360 degree full wave. This is so each power tube can be fed only half or 1/4th of the workload. The valve does not have to work as hard because it is resting 50% or 75% of the time and thus the heat is reduced more than 50% or 75% (it's not a linear difference in function). In practical reality, this allows for 2 valves to produce well more than double the wattage of a single valve running in class A mode. If you use 4 tubes you can double them up or split the phase at 90 degrees and each tube works 1/4th less -actually amounting to well more than 4 times the power of a single class A tube. Or they can gang two 180 degree phase split sections. There are several ways but pure 180 or 90 degree phase splitting is usually the most efficient and accurate method.

Class A has more ordered harmonic distortion and thus more musical qualities for high distortion guitar playing. They tend to sound more natural and smooth -like a saxaphone. Hence Charlie Christains famous sound he discoverd by simply turning an early class A Gibsom amp up a little high. His oplaying rsembled saxaphone playing. So much so that Benny Goodman hired him on the spot and the world of guitar playing was forever changed.

Despite a recent fad in the Hi-fi world, class A is NOT good for high fidelity reproduction and was discontinued for theaters, recording studios, record lathing, radio, etc. in the 1930s. Push Pull was developed in about 1920, but because of phase splitting difficulties it only came into wide use in the 1940s. Class A/B requires a highly accurate cathode-ground resistor circuit that uses at least 4 resistors that MUST be in very close tolerance for push-pull to work well. the average carbon resitor in 1945 had 10-20% tolerance. At least 5% was required for good class A/B performance. Wirewound resistors can work but have too much inductance. Carbon resistors were able to be made at 5% tolerance sommetime in the late 1940s and that helped start the Hi-Fi craze along with a fellow named Mr. Williamson and high quality output transformers. Guitar tube amps, however, usually sound better if they are NOT quite high-fi!

Still most guitar amps were designed pretty much the same as a hi-fi amp except for speakers and lower grade output transformers that sloped off the highs and sub bass. Old tube guitar amps are desired because old transformers and speakers have degraded oxidised insulation that rolls off the high end further. After about 50 years most speakers coils short out from degraded wire insulation and transformers will usually do the same a few years later. So my brother with his beloved 1963 Vibrolux is in for an awful shock if he lives another 20 years...

OK, I know old jazz, blues and folk records. I know old recording technology, radio and general electronics. I also know a lot about computer electronics. This came from many, many years of reading and experimentation. I also played in a rock band in the 1980s and know a bit about some fellow bands that were playing the same venues. E.g., I became good friends with the Morells. We were professional colleagues, I suppose you could say. I was one of the early people to be blown away by their work and specially their Telecaster player. Hence, I tried to update the Morell's page with 1st person source material. The page was 3 or 4 lines and at least 50% wrong. i had to do something. This was an important band! What I wrote was fact, but how do you citate yourself? As an amateur historian, I have learned that 1st sources; -people or paper are considered best for history writing. Read an old Brittanica. There are not citations every 3 words! The sources are generally listed at the end of the piece and the author's credentials. There are a few cross-refs that actually lead somewhere.

I'd like to write for Wiki, but I don't think I can break the clique that seems to run things. They have a passive writing bug up their arses and want citation links every 4 words. I hit these links and they usually lead to a blank Wiki page or a web page that is no longer being served! Geese. If Wiki wants experts from all areas to participate, they are gonna' have to read some Strunk and White and perhaps some classic encyclopeodias. Otherwise it's a closed shop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.38.4 (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you singled me out, nor am I clear on what you are asking me to do, if anything. However, you sound like you have much to contribute! Don't be shy, dive in! Just try to be encylcopedic - I saw the edit you made on Fender Twin, and then rolled back, which was more of a commentary on the current content than a correction of what was there. We are sticklers for citations, yes, and yes, there are many people who slip crappy sources by us. Call them on it! Replace them with your own sources. And yes, there is much passive voice, and many editors could stand to brush up on their Strunk & White, myself included. Let me know if there is something I can do to help you contribute. I suggest starting by creating a user account so we can communicate more easily. Steve CarlsonTalk 04:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)[edit]

Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research: the group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.

Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account. Thank you Cochrane!

If you are stil active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 19:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)