Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Open discussion on reformulation of electrical engineering and electronics engineering pages

Could I ask all parties on this project to take a look at the very relevant discussions just started on talk:electrical engineering and provide comments, if you wish, as to the best way to deal with the mass of information existing and the best way to differentiate between electrical engineering and electronics engineering giving a world wide view. It would be good to get as wide a consensus as possible and represent the widest views and concerns before we attempt to rearrange the material again. Thanks--Light current 16:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Important vote

There is an important vote underway on the subject of the electrical engineering page and my recent edits to it and how it relates to electronics engineering. Would project members kindly look at the discussions on that talk page when they have some time and express their opinions? Thank you!.--Light current 17:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Project communication

Is there anyway I could send a message to all project members at the same time without doing it individually?--Light current 19:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you can't, but you can just write on the talk page of the project and we'll see it by ourselves. Alessio Damato 12:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC

BJT, voltage-controlled or current-controlled

When I edited the transistor page, I changed the explanation of the BJT operation from a voltage controlled device to a current controlled device. I figured sooner or later it would be questioned, and I think I understand the confusion. In circuitry the transistor is typically "controlled" by applying a voltage to the base-emitter junction, if the base-emitter voltage is above approx. 0.7V the transistor is on. There is even an equation for collector current to base-emitter voltage, Ic=Is(exp(Vbe/Vt))

A transistor is ON at any positive bias voltage. Look at the equation for collector current--Light current 02:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I was restating a commonly used concept, albeit wrong. Snafflekid 23:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC) However, the meaning I use is how the physics of the BJT work (maybe the least common way of discussing the BJT control). For an NPN, holes from the base are injected into the base-emitter depletion region, which controls electrons from the emitter getting injected into the depletion region, diffusing across the base and finally collected in the collector. In reality, the BJT is a charge controlled device, but that is confusing.

I suppose if there is a better way of getting my point across on transistor, let me know. Snafflekid 00:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Please consider changing this back. We have been thro this discussion, THe BJT is voltage controlled. See Bill Beatys site: amasci.com--Light current 00:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you asked for it! No mention of voltage-control or current-control, but a gobsmack pile of information. BTW I read the site and I've some comments about Mr. Beatys views...after I've enjoyed my wine. Snafflekid 03:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I understand the spirit of his complaint, but really I don't see why he thinks every professor and text book doesn't know how a BJT works. (I think he did not do so well in his semiconductor physics course). If his explanation helps someone understand the BJT enough to be useful, well, great. But I don't agree with a lot of it.

"By applying a small voltage between Base and Emitter, we can make the thin layer of insulator become even thinner. If it's thin enough it stops insulating and charges flow across it. (Imagine bringing two wires closer and closer until the electrons start jumping across the microscopic gap.)"

First off, depletion regions are not insulators, at least not in any true sense of the word. Charges can flow through a depletion region, they cannot do that in an insulator. Also, electrons are not jumping across this thin gap. Free electrons in the N are created at room temperature, and they are always flowing randomly around, including into the abuting P where they happen to combine with the acceptor atoms and form fixed negative charges, when enough electrons have flowed into the P, the region develops enough negative charge to repel any more electrons which happen to randomly move towards it and we reach equilibrium. Very often (very very often) forward voltage is applied to the base-emitter junction, which "lowers the barrier" allowing less energetic electrons (and holes) to move through the depletion region and enter the neutral region of the base (or emitter), where they form the current. So, it would be technically valid to call the BJT a voltage controlled device under these circumstances, but this is not the end of the story. The reason current flows across the junctions is because something upsets the balance of diffusion and the repelling electric charge in the depletion region. I explained how voltage can do it. But voltage is not the only thing that can control the bipolar transistor. Photons striking the base-emitter junction generate electron-hole pairs, carriers which increase the number of carriers on a side of the junction, changing the diffusion constant and causing transistor action. Also, radiation particles can travel through the junction or nearby and create lots of electron-hole pairs, which can cause the B-E junction to conduct. Therefore, IMO it is the action of charge carriers moving across the B-E junction which causes current from Collector to Emitter. So, calling a BJT a voltage-controlled insulator is bunk, also IMO. A fundamental explanation of the BJT action uses charge as what controls the device. Snafflekid 23:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I dont think he says actually that a BJT voltage-controlled insulator does he. He says the depletion layer in some ways acts like a voltage controlled insultor. Any way the BJT is more voltage controlled than current controlled would you not say? The question of photoelectric effects etc are neither here nor there as far as normal transistor action is involved.--Light current 00:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

From this link [3] it seems to me that's what Bill Beaty says. The application of voltage is one way of getting the junction to conduct, but there are other mechanisms to get carriers into the base also which turn on the transistor and have nothing to do with lowering the barrier by using voltage (completely valid and useful mechanisms). Photons and radiation, I've mentioned. Even perhaps a magnetic field using the Hall effect could inject holes into the base. A carrier imbalance somewhere in the base or emitter is going to start the bipolar transistor action. Voltage is not guaranteed to make the transistor work. For instance, voltage could be applied to the B-E junction but if carriers are being robbed by some nearby process (highly contrived situation I know) then the transistor would not turn on. Maybe this discussion seems like splitting hairs, and probably is for a vast majority, but I just wanted to be clear why I think the carriers are the fundamental controller of the transistor. However, I doubt that declaring in the article the BJT as a carrier-controlled device is helpful. So I changed the article to what happens in the BJT and let people draw their own conclusion. Snafflekid 01:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes that's his short version. The long version is better. We all? know how to turn on a transistor and we dont use a battery across the BE. But sometimes we do use the voltage drop across a diode as per current mirror don't we?. If you maintained the BE voltage at say 0.65 V are you saying that there is a condition where it would not have any collector current flowing?. I've not heard of this one. Do you have any details?--Light current 03:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

1st- and 2nd-order filters

Moving discussions to a single place. — Omegatron 19:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

First or second order filters do not have names. BUTTERWORTH

From Talk:Butterworth filter

Omegatron. Have you not read the page lately? It says there is no such thing as a first order Butterworth or ant other sort of named filter. Thats why I took out your diagram. It could be used in RC circuits or somthing but its not appropriate here. It is misleading to call a first order filter a butterworth, Chebyshev, Bessel ar anything. There just arent enough degrees fo freedom to make any difference. Do you understand? I have mentioned this here a number of times. NB I dont think second order filters have names either cos theyre all the same apart from. Q and centre frequency. Not enough degrees of freedom. Can you see this? --Light current 20:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Feel free to explain that all the first-order filters are identical. Deleting things doesn't help people understand them.

The diagram is in the wrong article. Its from commons is it not. So it can be put in the right article which is RC circuits or LC circuits.--Light current 21:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Second-order filters are definitely not identical. — Omegatron 21:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Why do you say that? What attributes do second order filters have to differentiate them?--Light current 21:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

LC, it makes no sense to delete that diagram. Having a diagram of a first order Butterworth is better than nothing. Sure, having a fourth order one might be better. That's what I did in Chebyshev because it shows the ripples, so doing a fourth order butterworth might be good for comparison's sake. But don't just delete it. First order filters may be all the same, but it's still helpful to see what one looks like. 2nd order filters are not all the same. A chebyshev looks very different than a butterworth even at second order. You can see the ripple. How is Q a parameter for a filter? The only parameter for a low-pass (butterworth) filter is the center freq, I think. (I could be wrong since I mostly know about digital filters, not analog.) With butterworth, the pole positions are fixed. With chebyshev, pole positions are dependent on the passband ripple parameter. So, they're not the same. Pfalstad 04:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It makes a lot of sense as it is not appropriate to the page but to the other pages dealing with first order RC, RL networks. We have a diagram showing all the Butterworth responses from 1 to 5 .Why do we need another one? We are not deleting for the sake of it but to put it in the correct context/page. Any way the diag still exists in Commons so thers no need to get too excited. I'm at present discussing this with User:Omegatron as part of our WikiProject electronics. Want to join? --Light current 04:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the new diagram has the phase response, which is nice.. Shows a little more information, like the rolloff slope, cutoff frequency attenuation, names the passband/stopband, etc. What's so bad about the diagram? It's a Butterworth filter, what's inappropriate with having it in the Butterworth filter page? Btw I'm not sure I want to formally join anything. Pfalstad 05:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Any image can be placed in any article, regardless of whether it's from Commons. But yes, I uploaded this image to Commons.

How is, for example, a 2nd-order Butterworth identical to a 2nd-order Bessel? — Omegatron 23:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Because the only parameters you have available are the Q and the centre freq.

Now when we get to 3rd order and above, more variables exist, like the difference in frequencies between the pole pairs of each 2nd order system AND the Q of each stage. This is what defines the type of filter approximation: how the poles are distributed to approximate the ideal low pass filter. For instance in the Butterworth filter you'll find that all the poles are distributed around the unit circle. In a Bessel, they are on a bigger circle designating lower Qs than a Butterworth., In elliptical and Chebyshev filters, the poles are distributed on an ellipse (surprisingly enough).

All filter synthesis is an attempt to come up with a transfer function that has poles in the optimum place for the frequency response you want. BTW all filters, have a 6n dB/oct roll off well outside the passband. THis is called the final rate of attenuation. Hope this clarifies. --Light current 00:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Reference :Carson Chen, Active Filter Design, Hayden Book Company, NJ.1990 ISBN 0-8104-0959-3

Ok I dont mind a Butterworth 2nd order filter being shown in the Butterworth page. I was getting confused since both lots of talk have been moved here. Sincere apologies.:-( (Good discussion tho';-)-Light current 12:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

2nd order filters all the same? LOW PASS FILTER

From Talk:Low-pass filter

no they're not. the rolloff of a butterworth is not the same as that of a chebyshev. chebyshev rolloff even varies depending on the passband ripple. Pfalstad 16:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

What particular parameters can be varied with a second order filter to make distinct filter types?--Light current 16:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The poles are in different locations. In butterworth, the poles are in a fixed location. In chebyshev, they are in different locations, depending on the passband ripple. Do I need to draw you a graph? They don't look the same. Don't you have mathcad or something? Pfalstad 18:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I know where the poles are. It doesnt matter where they are for a 2nd order filter becauase there is only one pair of poles. The location of these poles is completely determined by the centre frequency and Q of the stage. So how does a 2nd order Butterworth differ from any other 2nd order apart from its Fc and Q? By frequency scaling, you can make the Chebyshev pole pair the same Fc and Q as the Butterworth pair. You get the same response. Do you see it now?

Q is not a filter parameter. The cutoff frequency is. The butterworth filter design dictates the location of the poles. The location of the poles dictates their Q. So, butterworth dictates the Q. You can't select the Q, except by changing the filter parameters (which in the case of butterworth, is just the cutoff frequency). If you move the poles around so it looks like a chebyshev, it's not maximally flat and thus is not butterworth. Pfalstad 19:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

OK. Let me quote you from Chens book

W0 = sqrt(alpha^2 + beta^2)

Q = W0/(2*alpha)

where Q is the Q factor and (alpha,j beta) is the pole location in the s plane

Both of these factors are necessary parameters of a 2nd order filter as you can see from the equations.

As I said before, selecting various Qs or W0 s for a second order filter does not define its type. Just think about it for a while. BTW have you ever designed a 2nd order filter, just so I know where to pitch my argument?--Light current 21:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

You just showed me an equation from Chen's book showing me that Q is completely determined by the pole location in the s plane. Q = (alpha^2+beta^2)/2*alpha, so Q is completely a function of alpha and beta. That is the point I was making. Q is not a parameter, but a way of describing a pole. You can describe a pole using alpha, beta or Q, W0. Doesn't matter which. Q is not a filter parameter, since you can not set it to anything you want. It is set by the filter design (Butterworth).

Please define a Butterworth filter. What is it? What makes a Butterworth filter a Butterworth filter? its poles? Its transfer function? The fact that it is maximally flat? what? If I show you a third order filter, how do you know it is a butterworth filter or not?

If I do frequency scaling on a filter to change the cutoff frequency, does that change the Q? I say it does not.

Are you saying you can change the Q on any pole in a filter and it is still the same type of filter? I say no. What sort of operations on Q are allowed? You can change any of the poles' Q to anything you want and it's still the same type of filter? In third order or fourth order?

What sorts of operations can you perform on a set of Butterworth filter poles, other than frequency scaling, which will preserve its identity as a Butterworth filter?

The Butterworth filter page gives a mathematical expression showing the frequency response of an nth order Butterworth filter. Is that what defines a Butterworth filter? is that expression correct for all Butterworth filters? Obviously if you change the Q of some of the poles, then that expression is no longer correct. So how would you correct it?

I have designed many digital filters of many orders, so you could pitch your argument that way. Pfalstad 23:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

LC look at this: Wikipedia:No Original Research. This theory of yours, that all 2nd order filters are the same, can't be introduced into wikipedia unless it's consensus. If you can't prove it by pointing to some book that says "all 2nd order filters are all the same", then you can't put it in here. Doesn't matter if you can convince anyone that your interpretation is true. It has to be already established as consensus. I have several filter books and none of them say this, and one of them has filter tables for Butterworth filters that go down to n=1. So I think the consensus is there is such a thing as n=1 and n=2 Butterworth filters. Pfalstad 00:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my long answer to one of your questions has been lost in an edit conflict. However, if you wish not to discuss this business, I accept that. All I'll say is that it makes WP editors look damn stupid to anyone who knows about filters. BTW What about first order filters - are they all different as well?--Light current 00:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

No, they are not. All I want is to be able to show a graph of a 1st or 2nd order Butterworth filter without having you come barging in and revert, saying, "There's no such thing!" I also want to give a 2nd order Butterworth as an example in the Low-pass filter article. Or, some specific example. The way it looks now, after you changed it, makes it sound like all second-order filters have exactly the same rolloff (-12 dB per octave), which is nuts. Maybe you just made a mistake? We need to define a specific example of a filter before describing the rolloff in that article.

NO You should know by now that reversion is not my style -- I leave that to others. My tactic is full and frank discussion then hopefully agreement (or agreement to disagree). Im not sure what you mean about the way Ive changed the article. Can you explian please? Agian I think that reference to the type of filter in the first order and second order cases is misleading to the newcomer. Maybe if we could indicate that not all 2nd order stages look like Butterworths....?but that you could make em look like Butterworths or any othe approx for that matter. Would you be happy with that?--Light current 01:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I refer to this: [1] I don't think my original text implied that all 2nd order filters looked like Butterworths. I was just giving an example. Pfalstad 01:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah but my point was that it doesnt have to be a butterworth to give you 12dB loss -- it could be any 2nd order filter. Final rate of attn = 6n dB/oct. Yes?--Light current 01:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, I'll take your word for it. But the final rate may not be the most important rate or most obvious for the novice. It's generally more important what the rolloff looks like near the cutoff, not what it looks like as f approaches infinity. If you look at different 2nd order filter transfer function graphs, they don't look the same. Chebyshev rolls off more quickly at first. You can put a note in there saying all 2nd order filters approach that rolloff rate at infinity, I don't care. Pfalstad 01:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree that different sorts of filters have different initial rates of roll off. Thats why we use them. But in a second order butterworth filter the initial rate looks to be 12 db/oct in my book by Chen. So actually a high Q tuned cct could give a much higher initial rate of roll off than a 2nd order Butterworth. Does that get us anywhere? Im lost now!--Light current 02:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The point is, can we put back my change in[2], or is there something else you'd like to add to my text to clarify it while still mentioning the Butterworth example, or some other specific example of a 2nd order? Pfalstad 02:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we say 'any second order filter (such as a Butterworth) will give 12 dB per oct ;... How does that suit you?--Light current 02:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

No. Other second order filters may have a higher initial rate of rolloff, as you just said. Why do you now say that they all give the same rolloff?? Pfalstad 02:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Final rate of roll off dear fellow! Anyway you suggest some wording.--Light current 02:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused about something. What's the final rate? Is it 6 or 12? You said twice it was 6 (actually "6n", does that mean something?). If it's 12, I would say something like, "Butterworth falls off at 12. (other 2nd orders may fall off at different rates initially but approach this same value)" Although I don't think it's really necessary to talk about the final rate here, but if you want it, you can have it. Pfalstad 02:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasnt clear. Final rate of roll off for any filter is 6n dB per octave, wher n is the order of the filter. So for a second order Butterworth or any other filter the final rate is 12 dB per octave (or 40 dB/decade)

I suggest the folowing words:

"Second order filters may roll off at different rates initially depending on their Q, but approach a final rate of -12dB per oct. A second order Butterworth filter's initial and final rates of roll off are very similar at -12dB /oct and its magnitude respone exhibits no peaking due to the critically damped response with a Q of 0.707"

--Light current 03:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

How about: "A second-order filter does a better job of attenuating higher frequencies. The Bode plot for this type of filter resembles that of a first-order filter, except that it falls off more quickly. For example, a second-order Butterworth filter will reduce the signal strength to one fourth its original level every time the frequency doubles (−12 dB per octave). Other second order filters may roll off at different rates initially depending on their Q, but approach the same final rate of -12dB per octave. See RLC circuit." The critically damped/Q stuff is good but maybe belongs in the RLC circuit article where those terms are described in detail. Or the Butterworth article. We don't want to go into a lot of detail here about Butterworths. And then under third- and higher-order filters, mention the 6n rule. Pfalstad 04:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I dont want to be awkward but I feel your latest submission is missing the point about 2nd order filters. Whilst you can make a 2nd order filter from the Butterworth pole locations, you can also make one from any other set of (conjugate) pole locations (almost) that you choose. The Butterworth and all other 2nd order 'named' filters are just special cases of the generalised 2nd order transfer function.

Any n-order filter can be made from a set of n conjugate poles. All filters are special cases of a generalized n order transfer function. Pfalstad 17:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hence, I feel that in an article about 1st and 2nd order LPFs, the emphasis should not be on a particular type. A particular type can be mentioned if you like, and the Butterworth is probably a good choice showing as it does a critically damped 2nd order system. But thats what is really is: a critcally damped 2nd order system.(or an RLC circuit even -- it acts the same). Other 'named' 2nd orders are either under or overdamped flavors of the same circuit. This is why I feel the Q (or damping factor) should be mentioned as in my submission. I dont want us to give the reader the impression that you have to have a named filter if all you want is a second order LPF. I think we should give the impression that 2nd order LPFs are simplish devices that can be designed without going into the unnecessary approximation problem. This is exactly the way the Carson Chen book (and most others I have come across) treats the subject. In 125 pages, the approximation problem (ie named filters) is not covered until page 62. So half the book is on what you can do with second order stages. I hope the foregoing explains my position. BTW I have nothing against Mr Butterworth or Mr Chebychev ar Mr Bessel etc. In short, lets keep it simple.--Light current 10:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The Q of a critically damped 2nd order system is 0.5 thus a Butterworth filter does not represent a critically damped system. Alfred Centauri 05:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct once more Alfred! My mistake (actually taken from the book without checking). 2nd order Butterworths are not critically damped as the poles lie on a circle.--Light current 08:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

So you like what I wrote, but you want to add back in that stuff about Butterworth critical damping and Q of .707? That's fine. I come from the digital filters world, where all this talk of Q and damping is rather unfamiliar, and I had never heard of a filter being specified by Q until you mentioned it. So talking about Butterworths is simpler for me. But whatever. Pfalstad 17:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

In the analog world I'd never heard of lowpass filters specified by Q, either. Only bandpass. — Omegatron 19:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a book with tables of Butterworth poles which goes down to n=1. Do a google search for "2nd-order butterworth", you'll see many hits. So I think your claim that it makes us look stupid is wrong. I just want to give a concrete example of a 2nd-order filter, and calling it Butterworth seems to be the simplest way of describing it, short of giving the pole and zero locations. Change it to something else specific if you want. I make no claims that Butterworth filters are unique in n=1 or 2 or anything like that.

If your boss (an ogre) said to you tomorrow, 'Gimme a 2nd order with 1 KHz centre, and Q of 5 (and make it snappy)' would you really go back to him and say 'Please Sir, will that be a Butterworth, Chebyshev, Bessel or some other sort?' I wouldnt -- wouldnt need to! Would you need to?--Light current 00:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope. This definition you gave uniquely defines the filter. So does saying "2nd-order butterworth with 1 kHz center". A filter with a Q of 5 cannot be Butterworth, because a Butterworth has a Q of .707. Bessel has a Q of .57 something, so it could be Cheby or Elliptic. Doesn't matter which, since giving the Q tells you where the pole is. If you wanted to give an example, you could talk about a 2nd order filter with Q of 1, but I think 2nd-order butterworth is simpler for the novice. It also generalizes to higher orders. I think I see what you were getting at now. With a second-order filter, you have the option of uniquely describing the filter as a 2nd-order with Q of X. But that doesn't mean that other descriptions are invalid. Pfalstad 01:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

LC, we know that all first-order filters are the same, but that doesn't mean the phrase "first-order Butterworth" is invalid. That's the common way to reference them, because of the shape. All second-order filters may have similarities, but it's really nonstandard to say they are identical. Feel free to explain these concepts in the articles, but Wikipedia isn't the place to introduce new terminology to the world and pretend that the common terminology is invalid. No original research.

Well all I can say is that it wasnt (to my knowledge) common terminology when I was designing filters. But there again, no one I knew would ask me for 1st or 2nd order filters (they could do that themselves). So, you see I'm not trying to introduce new terminology. I thought you were. But if its common in all the current books I suppose we'll have to allow it. Needless to say I dont agree with it! Good robust discussion tho'! Friends now? --Light current 14:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's 22 book references that contain a reference to first-order Butterworths. Comparable to the 49 books that reference fourth-order Butterworths, which we all agree on. (And there is only one first-order Chebyshev and zero first-order Bessel references, for comparison.)

Also, now that I've made the Butterworth Bode plot image, it's quite simple to make a higher-order version, which will clear up some of this. Pick your n value. 3rd-order? 4th-order?

You might be a bit disappointed though; it will look exactly the same.  ;-) — Omegatron 13:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ivor Catt Historical Article

OK. Now I think we have enough stuff to start to compose an historical article on the outlandish ideas of Mr Ivor Catt BSc. Many of his controversial ideas have been quite thoroughly discussed by AC, LC, 'O', Pfalstad etc on the talk:capacitor and other talk pages. We could start with his outrageous transmission line capacitor claims, then move on to his transmission line inductor stuff, then report on his claims about charge not existing, no displacement current, no need for electric current, the supremacy of EM radiation above all else etc., etc,. Any offers from anyone to start it off?--Light current 17:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Ivor? Is that you? Pfalstad 19:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

No its me-- Do you think Ivor Catt has as much time as I spend on WP?? He's too busy promoting his nonsense!Light current 19:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I was mostly kidding, since I thought some of his ideas were similar to ideas you were proposing on the various talk pages. Pfalstad 23:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Not a draft anymore

When I started the project I wrote that the page was still a draft at the beginning, but now we really started working properly, and I don't think we are working on a draft anymore.

I wanted to leave it until we found a solution about a drawing programme for circuits, but now I relised that there is nothing like what we want, and we still have to wait a long time.

I suggest to clean up the main page, moving the TODO-like lists in other sub-pages, merging the different signed comments about programmes in one general comment and so on. We could add a nice picture at the beginning of the page, just to make it nicer. I took a look at wikicommons featured images for it: I might suggest Image:Plasma-lamp.jpg, but there are others here. Alessio Damato 13:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I have some electronics photos I took myself. I'll have a look to see if I have anything suitable to upload Would you like to start the tidy up proceedure?--Light current 13:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

ok, I'll start doing something later. Alessio Damato 11:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I started a radical clean-up and reorganization of the main page, moving away lots of things in their own page. I did it for both the talk page and the list of tasks. Let's talk about the things you don't agree with and keep on cleaning up! I have chosen the picture quite randomly: if you see anything nicer just change it. Alessio Damato 15:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I moved some data to the "Archive 1" page. The discussion page is still big so we would need to move other stuff. What about creating a page just for the "mindstretchers"?? or shall we put them in the "Archive 1" page as well?? Alessio Damato 17:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Defunct page

Circuit design contains only information that has been merged into either resistor or capacitor. Do we delete this page now to prevent others from erroneously adding inapproriate material, or do we keep the title but redefine the desired content. Opinions here please.--Light current 13:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

We could redefine it as Integrated circuit design. Im sure User:Snafflekid and others could have a lot of input on that The ins and outs of designing integrated circuits. Sounds interesting! I know very little about it so would have to leave it to others.--Light current 13:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

When I first started the page, i intended to make a page for novice / beginners in Electronics and electronics hobbists. i thought of giving the electronics project tips and tools like things. but then I received a message that i was vandalizing the page. i still think of continuing it :( --Davy Jones 02:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Well it looked like vandalism. If you make a change that big, you have to discuss it on a discussion page first, and then put a note in your edit summary referring to the discussion. Otherwise somebody will assume its vandalism and revert it. Also I think you were doing a "how-to" page for beginners, which isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia like wikipedia. It would work well in wikibooks, I think. Pfalstad 02:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the page could be saved. Basic explanation of circuit design (for the uninformed) Purpose of circuit design, tools used in circuit design, techniques of circuit design. I'm just brainstorming at the moment. Snafflekid 02:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Thats a massive area youre talking about there Snafflekid!. I think its got to be narrowed down a bit otherwise it will grow like topsy and be very difficult to control in future.--Light current 02:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that integrated circuit design would be any smaller. I can put up an outline for circuit design and see what direction it takes. If it is too big then, be bold... Snafflekid 00:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I have started a integrated circuit design article, which will be a work-in-progress for a while I believe. Please add anything that comes to mind and I'd be happy to elaborate on it. Snafflekid 20:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Its all yours. Best of luck 'kid!--Light current 23:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

All I can say is that we are all behind you. --Davy Jones 02:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I honestly agree with Pfalstad. this should have been in Wikibooks. and by the way, i came across a page in wikipedia which gives links to internal pages with list of articles with C programs --Davy Jones 04:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a note

There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Digital Communication Systems which I started, but not much activity has gone on, with the exception of fixing up Phase-shift keying. --HappyCamper 00:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I added it to the (new) list of sister projects. Welcome to our project :-) Alessio Damato 15:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)