User talk:Chetvorno/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

EMR

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)

Barnstar

	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)

Yes, combination of fun and frustrating time wasting. What could be better? I get to Seattle from time to time (family in the area). Email and maybe we can get to know each other. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

An Adult Beverage for you!

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)

Thanks to you too

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)

Thanks, Zaereth. I wanted for some time to say what an improvement you made on Optical flat, with the detailed descriptions and great photos. Tech articles are much better when written by editors with experience in the field (which I assume you have) rather than amateurs (me). Kudos! --Chetvorno^TALK 04:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm flattered. To be honest, my experience is more with lasers, but the same phenomenon can occur. If all the optics aren't the same flatness you get concentric rings form in the beam profile. Those λ/10 flats are dual-surface, used as windows in one of my home-made dye lasers. Until I took it apart for cleaning I only had my λ/20 mirror to use. That's the first time I'd ever seen the perfectly straight fringes with my own eyes. (In fact, if you look carefully, you'll notice both green photos are of the same float-glass window, but the 1" mirror is only reading the central portion of it with slightly more accuracy.) Anyhow, thanks again for your efforts. They are always appreciated. Zaereth (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• I appreciate both of you (and Dicklyon and Spinningspark and Jc3s5h and lots of others). I'm even a fan of Steve. Glrx (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Which Steve is that? Jobs? Anyway, a little mutual admiration society is cool. Anyone else in Silicon Valley and/or Seattle wants to meet up, let me know. Bring your slide rule, or I'll give you one of mine. Dicklyon (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The four-legged Steve who hangs out on Zaereth's front lawn. Glrx (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Got it. But I think it's a bunch of bull. Dicklyon (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Zaereth, that's a cool page. And Seattle's not that far from Anchorage, right, depending on what projection you use... Dicklyon (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I go away for a day and a party forms. Been up north snowmachining (snowmobiling), but it's just too cold out there! It's nice to see a you people from my watchlist gathered here. Thanks for the compliment. It may be a while before I get back to Seattle. I recently added a new pup to my collection, and she's just getting old enough to begin testing her limits. Yikes! She's a spirited one too.) I train them for search and rescue (including tracking, avalanche, earthquake, and water retrieval), so I may be quite busy until she's fully trained.

Steve shows up at my street every year around May, does his rounds and moves on around the town. There are lots of city moose and bears. Zaereth (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, Zaereth, your page is too cool. Love Steve. What breed's the pup? What do you do with your homemade dye laser? Guess you could manufacture weapons-grade uranium by isotope separation. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

My first laser attempt

German Shepherd. I used to work with bloodhounds, but Shepherds are so much easier to train. (A bloodhound thinks it owns you.)

This what I tell everybody: You see, I always wanted to go to the moon. When I called NASA asked them for a ride, they just laughed at me. So I figure if I can make a powerful enough laser, I can write my name on the moon. Then they'll come to me, and I'll say, "Give me a broom and a ride and I'll clean it up."

Seriously, though, I'm an experimentalist. I rarely believe what I read without trying it for myself. When I read that I could make a laser out of any material, using only a light and a couple of mirrors, the challenge was set. My first "laser" was a piece of wine-bottle sandwiched between two copier mirrors with a flashlight bulb. Needless to say, I succeeded enormously in proving that source wrong. My next choice was the dye laser, and I didn't know it at the time, but I doubt I could've picked a more difficult one. There was no such thing as an internet back then, and the local libraries were not helpful, so I got most of my info from talking directly to manufacturers. (Turns out, the laser business is very competitive, but a few companies like Exciton, Coherent, Advanced Radiation, or Condenser Products were very helpful.) You had to buy everything brand new back then too. All those optics and flashtubes and stuff weren't cheap. (I searched the whole world for my output mirror, wanting at least 100 nm of usable range, from Europe to Japan, and found only one, in Arizona.) What I wouldn't have given for something like Wikipedia and Ebay back then.

My main interest is the laser itself. It's not enough just to build one, but I have to complicate things by trying to improve upon it too. My first attempt was to ease tuning by using a long tube, with thick windows at Brewster's angle on a 3 degree wedge, so that it could be tuned by simply realigning the flat mirrors. Turns out, all that did was generate multiple wavelengths reflecting along different modes. Then I invented the coaxial dye laser, hoping to improve transfer efficiency. Unfortunately, someone else beat me to it decades earlier. Transfer efficiency is indeed increased, but gain is decreased due to diffraction losses. (Live and learn.) Zaereth (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

But neither this sentence nor the dominant article content reflects that

"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)

But isn't it far more misleading to say that resonance is a phenomenon of classical physics and doesn't occur in quantum mechanics, as your wording does? The difference between classical and quantum mechanical resonance is far too complicated a topic to go into in the introduction, and there is no need to. The qualification "semiclassical heuristic", will just confuse general readers. The introduction also doesn't go into the differences between mechanical and electromagnetic resonance, nor should it. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Layzeeboi: would it be okay if we continue this discussion on Talk:Resonance so others can participate if they want to? --Chetvorno^TALK 19:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed — that better forum had belatedly occurred to me also. 22:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Layzeeboi (talk • contribs)

Tesla punch list

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)

Oops, I still didn't get those dates right. Third time's the charm. Thanks. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Tesla coil#Oscillation frequency

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.

$f_{1}={1 \over 2\pi }{\sqrt {1 \over L_{1}C_{1}}}\qquad \qquad f_{2}={1 \over 2\pi }{\sqrt {1 \over (1-k^{2})L_{2}C_{2}}}\,$

${1 \over 2\pi }{\sqrt {1 \over L_{1}C_{1}}}={1 \over 2\pi }{\sqrt {1 \over (1-k^{2})L_{2}C_{2}}}\,$

Thus the condition for resonance between primary and secondary is

$L_{1}C_{1}=(1-k^{2})L_{2}C_{2}\,$

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.

$f_{2}={1 \over 2\pi }{\sqrt {1 \over L_{2}C_{2}}}\,$ this is the anti-resonant frequency 1

$f_{2}={1 \over 2\pi }{\sqrt {1 \over (1-k^{2})L_{2}C_{2}}}\,$ this is the resonant frequency 1' --Neotesla (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You are certainly right. Thanks for bringing this up. However, the Tesla coil is very loosely coupled; the coupling coefficient $k$ is 0.05 to 0.2 in typical coils. Therefore $1-k^{2}$ in your equations above is = 0.96 to 0.9975, so the primary resonant and secondary antiresonant frequencies are within 4% of each other, and often closer - "approximately" equal. For this reason most elementary sources [2], [3], [4] say the primary and secondary must be tuned to the same frequency to give maximum voltage. I had written the Tesla coil#Oscillation frequency as a simplified explanation for general readers, and I was planning to add a new "Circuit analysis" section to the article giving the complete mathematical solution to the circuit, including your more accurate equations above. However I haven't had time, so I have no objection to you correcting the equations in the "Oscillation frequency" section. You seem to be very educated; perhaps you would also like to write the "Circuit analysis" section? Cheers --Chetvorno^TALK 04:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Since I started writing about the above, please cooperate with me and correct if English is unnatural.--Neotesla (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with writing the "Circuit analysis" section. But I need your help as I can not so well to use English natively. However, it takes time, so we need to spend time drafts.--Neotesla (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Your English is better than that of many editors here, but I agree some of it could be improved. My time is limited, but I would be happy to help if I can. Maybe we could use your personal sandbox? I will put it on my watchlist. You could copy drafts there and I could suggest improvements to the English.

I do have some concerns about some of your changes. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, and most of the readers coming to the Tesla coil page will have little electronics knowledge. Many readers complain that scientific Wikipedia articles are too technical; they can't understand them. For that reason I personally think that the first section, Operation, should be a simplified explanation of how it works. The changes you want to add, the more complicated secondary equivalent circuit, and the multiple resonant frequencies of the secondary, are details which are not necessary for a simple understanding of how the circuit works. I don't mind if they are mentioned briefly, but I think the full explanation of these details should be reserved for the new "Circuit analysis" section.

Another concern I have is with the term "short-circuit inductance". While I understand that this is a technical term for the inductance seen at the primary when the secondary is short-circuited, regarding the transformer as a two port, most readers are not going to understand this. They may think it means the secondary coil is short-circuited in the actual circuit. I would suggest that this term not be used in the Operation section. --Chetvorno^TALK 01:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I almost agree with what you are saying. By the way, regarding short-circuit inductance, it is written in the Japan industryal standard as follows.

4305 短絡インダクタンス 複数の巻線がある場合，一方の巻線を短絡して，他方の巻線から測定したインダクタンス. (Translation) Short-Circuit Inductance: When there are multiple windings, one winding is short-circuited and the Inductance measured from the other winding. [5] This is same for Japan as well as for Germany. How is it described in the United States?--Neotesla (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not suggesting eliminating your additions, but they belong in a more advanced section that should be created below the "Operation" section. Some of them, such as your sentence on overtone (harmonic) mode standing waves on the coil, are minor effects that do not have a great influence on the operation. This statement is going to be incomprehensible to readers without more explanation. So why include it in this section? I already began a section explaining how the secondary acts as a transmission line: User:Chetvorno/work8#The secondary as a slow-wave resonator.

In English the phrase "short-circuit inductance" is not a standard term used in electrical engineering, as far as I can tell, so if it is used it needs to be defined. --Chetvorno^TALK 11:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It is correct to create another section and move. I just think that it will take time and effort.--Neotesla (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

parallel resonant type structure

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)

Would it be all right with you if we move this discussion to Talk:Tesla coil so others could participate if they want? --Chetvorno^TALK 03:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Let 's talk with everyone. However, my English is not so good, also late.--Discharger1016 (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Glow discharge

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 think a lot of your improvements have been really good. However, there are several things to consider. It's actually the ions that are the most energetic particles in the plasma. The ions are most energetic near the cathode, while the electrons are most energetic when approaching the anode. The ions make up less than 1% of the plasma and produce all of the emitted light.

Electrons are far less energetic. The negative field around the cathode tends to always remain constant in size, whereas lengthening the tube will only cause the positive column to grow in length. By the time an electron reaches the end of the negative column, it's energy is almost depleted. It is at this point that most of the electrons move around the positive column, enclosing it inside an electron sheath. From this point, nearly all of the current flow occurs within this electron sheath, bypassing the gas. Contained by the sheath, the plasma in the positive column exchanges electrons neutrally (without taking in much from the cathode or putting much out to the anode), in the form of eddy currents.

There are three separate ways in which the plasma may produce light, and all three occur to some degree. When the ions and atoms collide, and electron is transferred from one to the other. This causes a photon to be emitted of one of a few very specific wavelengths (spectral lines). This method predominates at low current densities, and is responsible for the pinkish glow. At higher current densities, free-bound transitions tend to occur. This happens when an ion captures a free electron, and a photon of light of any wavelength will be emitted. Areas where the gas appears more whitish (in both the positive and negative column) is where these transitions are occurring. Free-free transitions happen when an electron is accelerated or decelerated by an ion, without being captured by it. This removes some energy from the ion, thus a photon of light is emitted at any wavelength. Free-free transitions increase with increasing energy density (where there is a high concentrations of ions per electrons), and this high energy causes the lower atomic levels to reach saturation very quickly, so the output tends to be centered in the blue to UV portions of the spectrum. Therefore, areas where the gas is blue or purplish is where these free-free transitions are occurring the most. The plasma is literally trying to tear itself apart in opposite directions. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Zaereth, it sure does help. I feel better now that someone else has looked at this article. Wikipedia depends upon editors like you to keep it accurate. Thanks for your edits to the article, and for your many other contributions. Comfr (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for asking me, Comfr, but I think you and Zaereth know more about the subject than me. Also work is not allowing me much editing time right now. Glad to see that article get improved. Cheers, Chetvorno^TALK 06:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Nonlinear element

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. SpinningSpark 16:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Displacement Current

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)

Moving watt balance to Kibble balance

FYI: Talk:Watt balance. Birdfern (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Shortwave radio receiver

Shortwave radio receiver (edit | 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)

Thanks for asking me. Yeah, I see, the article does need work. Job commitments are not allowing me much editing time right now, but I'll see if I can make a start at it. Thanks again --Chetvorno^TALK 20:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Magnetic reactance

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)

Wow (rolling on the floor laughing). Does that ever need some work. I pity the poor guys that come to that page and try to suck some meaning from that mathematical gibberish. Probably be the last Wikipedia article they ever look at. Good catch. I don't have that much time but that page should probably be top priority. The term "magnetic reactance" is out of date; modern books call it "inductive reactance". I googled it and found virtually no hits in sources later than 1920. I think the term should probably just be redirected to Reactance#Inductive reactance, which is a much better explanation anyway. Thanks for asking me, I'll work on it. Cheers --Chetvorno^TALK 02:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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)

Complex amplitudes

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)

Sure, I'd love to see it! Hey, good to talk to you again; I haven't had much editing time lately. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll email it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

How am I doing regarding my inclusion of a subtopic at Inductance?

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)

@Vinyasi: Thanks for asking me. The idea sounds interesting, I don't mean to criticize, but I have serious doubts whether it meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have put a detailed reply on Talk:Inductor (shielded). ----Chetvorno^TALK 19:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Phased array animation

Thank you for your phased array animation, which was recently used on Ars Technica. [6] Certes (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I want to know about the procedure of creating new pages in Wikipedia

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)

Hi, 69 is best, welcome to Wikipedia.

You should first read the page WP:Your first article which tells about the requirements for starting a new article. You can start a new article by typing the desired name of the article into the search box which appears on the left side of each Wikipedia page and clicking "Go" (first read the page WP:Article names which tells how to choose the best name for your new article). If there is already an article with that name, the article will come up. If not, you will see a message You may create the page "Hoobergoober" (where Hoobergoober is the name you typed). By clicking on the name in red, you can create the new article.

If you want a page to try out edits, you can use your personal "sandbox" page User:69 is best/sandbox, which you can get to by clicking on the link "sandbox" at the top of the page. Cheers! --Chetvorno^TALK 23:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

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)

Thanks! Hoping to have lots of Wikifun in 2018 --Chetvorno^TALK 15:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer review newsletter #1

Introduction

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:

• THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
• Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.

Updates

It can get quite lonely tinkering with peer review...

With a bit of effort we can renovate the place to look like this!

Update #1: the peer review volunteers list is changing

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.

Update #2: a (lean) WikiProject Peer review

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.

Update #3: advertising

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)

DC generator in mechanically powered flashlight

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)

Squarial (Patch antenna rather than resonant cavity?

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)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

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)

Reductio Ad Absurdum

@Chetvorno: Chetvorno, this is ridiculous. The content that I put back was there for months. The edit war is the person removing the content! Rstrug (talk)

I think I will take my discussion of this topic to the article Talk page, where everyone interested can participate. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

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)

Waving?

In this edit, were you thinking of this? SpinningSpark 12:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

LOL! Maybe that should be the lead picture on Radio wave. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Link budget (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Amplification

Radio spectrum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Data rate

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

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)

Response

To your recent comment on my "talk" page, at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.89.176.249

70.89.176.249 (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

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)

Laminating of e.m. cores

"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)

@Liltender: I left a reply to your question on the article's Talk page Talk:War of the currents. Why don't we conduct this discussion on that page, since it concerns the article, and that would give other interested editors a chance to participate? --Chetvorno^TALK 21:06, 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)

Let's try to keep the discussion on the article's Talk page, so other editors can follow what's going on and participate if they want to. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla page

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)

Which version is the original? --Chetvorno^TALK 23:36, 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

Telegraphy article

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. SpinningSpark 15:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Field line construction

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)

Just for fun and maybe an interesting add

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)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

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)

Answer the question

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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!

Disambiguation link notification for June 13

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)

Sources on Tesla RfC

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)

I'll think about it, but that was pretty much my point in my comment. In the Internet age people don't just get their information from "respectable" sources approved by historians. There are so many extreme views and crazy false claims such as Cosovic's on all sides in the Balkan nationalist conflict that that justifies keeping Tesla's true ethnicity in the lead. --Chetvorno^TALK 10:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct with that,although the level of conflict in Balkan can be divided on official level between goverments ,historians,clergies etc. and common people who are using comments in newspapers to wage their battles (and everyone has their own theory and opinion about everything).Cosovic belongs to latter group, only difference is that he has a platform where he writes his opinion and doesn't allow anybody to be part of discussion. He even attacked some Montenegrin historians over Petrovic Njegos, but like I wrote before doesn't have proper education (or any specific level of education, that's why some people ironically call him Mr. Cosovic occupation unknown)User:Theonewithreason (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Load bank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Power and Cooling system

Lens antenna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Focal point

Very low frequency (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Data rate

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Tesla coil

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)

I would rather discuss this on Talk:Tesla coil so other interested editors could get involved. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

That is correct. I agree. I added a new section to Talk:Tesla coil#Resonant transformer?. --Neotesla (talk) 23:06, 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)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Atomic orbital (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nucleus

Augusto Righi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Paraffin

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 25

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)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Phosphor

added a link pointing to Scintillation

Slot antenna

added a link pointing to Omnidirectional

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

why do you delete facts ?

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)

What did I delete that you didn't like? You managed to write a whole diatribe against me without saying what you are mad about. I need a link to the edit, or at least which article it was. --Chetvorno^TALK 03:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Concerning revert on Crystal radio article

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)

Homemade set with sliding tuning contacts

Crystal radio tuning transformer with switched taps

Well, the circuit shown in that section did have a variable capacitor in the primary circuit, C1, although it is in series with the coil, not parallel, so the primary circuit was series-resonant instead of the more usual parallel-resonant (I copied that circuit from an early crystal radio, so I know its right, but I can't remember the source.) From what I remember early transformer coupled crystal receiver circuits often had series-resonant primaries. I suspect the reason is the large wire antennas used back then had a low impedance, 20 - 200 ohms, so the low impedance of a series resonant circuit was a good match.

But as you say, a lot of inductively coupled sets didn't have a primary capacitor and used the antenna capacitance. In these the antenna transformer's primary was tuned either with a sliding contact or a multiposition switch that selected taps on the coil. --Chetvorno^TALK 04:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like I got the primary and secondary windings mixed up: I meant the antenna side of the circuit needing its own variable capacitor (to allow for tuning to match the resonant frequency of the detector side). ZFT (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Which circuit in the article are you looking at? --Chetvorno^TALK 00:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the section 'Inductive coupling'. ZFT (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The circuit diagram on the L side just above the section, labeled "Direct-coupled", is not of an inductively-coupled receiver, but of a single coil set in which the antenna is connected to the tuning coil with adjustable taps for impedance matching. That drawing is supposed to refer to the previous sections. The diagram on the R side is the inductively-coupled receiver, which has primary tuning capacitor C1. Sorry, I guess that should be clarified. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean the one described in the paragraph. ZFT (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

What is the problem with it? --Chetvorno^TALK 19:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

In the case where the antenna side (i.e., the primary) of the circuit relies on the antenna's capacitance, instead of having its own variable capacitor, then (except by adjusting the length or position of the antenna) it's resonant frequency would be fixed. If I understand correctly, for a transformer to be considered "resonant", both the primary and secondary must have the same resonant frequency, which in the case of this circuit would only be when the secondary is tuned to whatever frequency the primary is fixed at. ZFT (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

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)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

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)

Requesting input on Introduction to thermodynamic entropy RfC

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)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla

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)

The subject of Tesla's nationality and ethnicity has been fought about continuously on the Talk page for 11 years by Serbian and Croatian nationalists. The current wording is accurate; it is supported by WP:reliable sources which are cited in the article. It has stood for more than 7 years against numerous efforts to change it. If you are still interested in changing it, you should know that there is a large community of editors watching the page who are neither Croatian nor Serbian, have heard all your arguments before, and will defend the article against nationalist bias from either side. I would suggest doing something more productive with your time. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Magnetic materials

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)

My feeling is that the introduction should be comprehensible by general readers who have no scientific education; it may be the only part of the article they read or can understand. Your suggestion will be very misleading for them. In everyday usage paramagnetic, diamagnetic and antiparamagnetic materials are usually called "nonmagnetic", as the force of a typical field on them can only be detected by laboratory instruments (yes carbon sheets and frogs can be levitated by neodymium and superconducting magnets respectively, but this is the exception). If all materials are "magnetic materials", what is misleading about using this term in the introduction? Calling them "magnetized materials" is even more misleading. Using this term says not only that ferromagnetic materials alone are acted on by magnetic fields, but that they have to be magnetized before they can feel a magnetic force. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Frequency

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)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Electric current

added a link pointing to Variable

Radio wave

added a link pointing to Polarization

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Electric current

added a link pointing to Variable

Electromagnet

added a link pointing to Vector

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Wireless telegraphy

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)

I'm sorry, Ted. You're right, that was rude and inconsiderate. I wasn't thinking. I'll revert and discuss. By the way, I've seen your excellent work on a lot of pages, I certainly don't think you have any lack of knowledge on these subjects. --Chetvorno^TALK 13:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's gracious of you. Discussion on Wireless telegraphy talk page. --TedColes (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

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)

Australian Reflex Receivers.

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)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

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)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Electric motor

added a link pointing to Prime mover

Push–pull output

added a link pointing to TTL

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

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)