User talk:Ccrrccrr

Welcome!

Hello, Ccrrccrr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your willingness to contribute. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Don't forget to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which automatically produces your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

I have also replied to your question at the help desk. Again, welcome! -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dove Foundation

For anyone working on the Dove Foundation article, I'd like to suggest that we conduct that discussion on the article's discussion page. I accidentally said "talk page" on my edit summary. That was a mistake--I meant discussion page. Ccrrccrr 16:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toroidal transformer

Hi, I was wondering why you changed the caption of this drawing from a transformer to an inductor. I drew it, and intended it to represent a transformer: there are two wires to a primary winding emerging from the left hand side, and two from a secondary emerging from the right hand side. Regards, — BillC ^talk 20:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, and yes, I agree it would be clearer if the wires were shaded a different colour and/or had different thicknesses. I did try something like that earlier, but ran into a few problems and eventually gave up. I still have the POV-Ray code used to render the image, so maybe I'll give it another try with a fresh pair of eyes. Regards, — BillC ^talk 08:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Building insulation materials

I agree with separating the discussion in

Radiant Barrier vs Conductive /Convective

Materials

Product examples

A table outlining pros/cons would be a better way of summarising the information

We could consolidate info with thermal insulation and building insulation as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.145.245 (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC) 219.90.145.245 (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from a short summary or table on each insulation product, perhaps they should all have a separate sub-article. I am not sure how to do this so that the Edit summary keeps track.

Dymonite (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

Probably my error - saw the double removed & didn't catch the grammatical error that was left in the wake thereof. SkierRMH (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CFL

You reverted my note about LED efficiency. I have several LEDs purchased from various vendors that are >100lm/W. Not samples. See for example http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=XREWHT-L1-R250-00C01TR-ND as an example of a 100lm 1W LED. http://www.cree.com/cn/products/pdf/XLampXR-CB&L.pdf (explains binning and labelling) and http://cree.com/products/pdf/XLamp7090XR-E.pdf gives the overview.

The cited text when I checked it says (paraphrasing) that high efficiency LEDs (>100lm/w) are encouraging the use, not will encourage the use. Thanks.

--Speedevil (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise now that wasn't actually >100lm/W http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=216473 this is though. (I'm having trouble with intermittent web connections ATM which is making research difgficult.) Anyway. R2 bin is 112lm minimum at 350mA and 3.2V typ, leading to 1.12W, anything towards the top of the bin is >100lm/W.

As OR, I have a LED in the >100lm bin which is ~3.05V at 350mA. Following the datasheet gives about 120lm/W at 175mA.

This discussion belongs on the talk page of the article; I'll continue it there.Ccrrccrr (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optimal Average Cruising Speed

Ccrrccrr,

The text clearly indicates that the EPA sees the speed where fuel efficiency begins to decline as near 60mph, rather than 55. The curve is pretty flat between 45 and 60 in the graph in 2009. This graph looks like a cut and past from another, older report. Of course, this also makes the 2005 EPA graph a little suspect in my eyes.

I found a the data and calculation methodology on the EPA site, but don't when I'll get around to studying and analyzing it.

http://www.epa.gov/oms/fetrends.htm#report

Aaron shem (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following up on this discussion at Talk:Fuel_economy-maximizing_behaviors#Efficient_Speeds_section.Ccrrccrr (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4x4 = 4WD + 4-on-the-floor

I'm sure you felt justified in deleting a piece of 1950s usage history, but I see it as an insult to all those, including myself, who contributed to that factual (albeit difficult to substantiate due to the pervasiveness of the current usage) entry. To date, besides potentially demotivating those contributors, all you've managed to achieve is one non-sequitur response (missed the point, likely didn't exist in the era under discussion).

While I agreed that your insertion of cit.-reg'd tags was justfied, I see the complete removal of the subject as an unjustified censureship, remindful of Communist rewriting of distasteful history. So, to rectify this injustice I intend to AGAIN reinsert the paragraph(s), with some added wording to indicate it was mostly North American colloquial usage by knowledgeable automotive enthusuasts, and had no basis in prior military usage (per your ref) even if possibly inspired by such

As a driver of "four by four" trucks when essentially all cars were 2WD with column shifters operating 3-speed manuals (some automatics becoming optional although many were 2-speeds), I recognized and followed the subsequent introduction and popularity of 4WD and 4-speeds with floor shifters on cars, and the combination being called "four by four." I also noted, as aptly described by Tommm3000 in his contribution of last December (adding to entries that began in May 2008), that the term was evolving in the 1960s and '70s to more of a synonym for 4WD, especially since this and 4-speed manuals were less of a novelty.

Incidentally, my insertion of a ref to "four on the floor" was intended only as such and inserted with that phrase accordingly - you seemed to miss that point, deriding it as supposedly a ref for the 4x4 usage, and you even seemed to use this as part of your justification to delete the whole subject.

99.246.4.248 (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Did you see the discussion on the article talk page? I'd encourage you to continue that discussion there. As I said there, I'd be happy to have something in the article about this usage of the term, and I'd like us to work together to try to find some verification that would allow putting it in the article.Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are so strict about citations, may I suggest that you proceed to add fact tags to almost all of this article - it has none now, but most statements are not supported by references - including yours that the 1940s instruction manual indicates that the first digit is the number of wheels and the second is the number of driven wheels - this is not, to my knowledge, included in that citation - implied maybe but that does not make it valid.

Then, when you've done the above, scan through all of the 2.8 milion articles in Wikipedia and find any fact tags that have existed for three months without being resolved and delete the content involved - do this just in the interest of fairness! By then almost every article will look as if it's been grossly vandalized. Do the same to the Four Wheel Drive article in three months, and it will be reduced to about half of its current size.

If I seem somewhat bitter, you bet I am! I believe in following rules and standards but I also believe in fairness - and I believe, despite Wikipedia's rule, that experience and anecdotal facts, suitably flagged as such, are valuable to a comprehensive encyclopedia like this. Meanwhile, until you complete the above tasks or mitigate your injustice, I am gone from this site except as a "read only" resource. Over the past few days I've run across inaccuracies, typos, outdated articles, etc., and have been tempted to correct them as I've been doing since 2004, but I have not - I'm finished - totally demoralized, thanks!! 99.246.4.248 (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel demoralized. Again, if you want to discuss the article, I suggest the article talk page. I don't feel any need to respond to your sarcastic suggestion. Your serious suggestion, that I "mitigate the injustice" presumably refers to working on the article. As I've said on the talk page there, I'd welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively on finding some verifiable content on this to include in the article. I also recognize that anecdotal facts can be valuable contributions. They are officially welcome on talk pages, and I've encouraged that. I also agree that, properly tagged as such, they can even have a place in articles. I'd be open to the possibility of saying something along the lines that the number of wheels x number driven notation was in use in the military by some early date, that anecdotal evidence indicates that some people used a wheels driven x speeds notation at some later point, and that then the military terminology became more universal. Would you agree with that?Ccrrccrr (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me - go ahead and it may be the mitigation I was expecting - be aware that I may, unless you do, add the time frame and the reason why the two fours were significant, which were in the content you deleted. It seems, anyway, that you're not likely to get any further input in the article's Talk page (I intentionally avoided it, despite your recommendation to do so, because this is more of a one-on-one than a discussion of the article's content). Also, I apologize for the sarcasm - it was meant as emphasis of what I viewed as unfair treatment - it seems to me that no other flagged content has been deleted merely three months later. (I've taken it upon myself many times to find a citation reference for somebody else's flagged content!) 99.246.4.248 (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insulator R-value as a rating

Why you are so resistant to the inclusion of a formula relating the R-value to the heat conduction problem? That's the whole point of insulation. Insulators are rated by their "resistance" to the transfer of heat. There is a process for assigning these numbers and they are most meaningful if they are based on the science involved. The R-value does not merely serve the needs of the construction and building materials industries. It is also of use to engineers, architects and the heating industry.

We need to speak to a wider audience when we do Wikipedia articles. My presumption is that the articles are intended for the general public and not just the trade industries. As written the current article is incomplete. --Jbergquist (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note--will reply on the article talk page. I'm for having a formula but it needs to be correct. Ccrrccrr (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And upon going to do this, I found that your formula was right, so I restored it. Sorry! My mistake.Ccrrccrr (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Production quota links

You're right, I'll stop and revert the links that are wrong. Edward (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Your edits have helped quite a bit. Now the articles on magnetic circuits no longer to be seem in the middle of nowhere. Thank you!Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 02:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and thanks for the note! --Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move (rename) engineering vehicle to heavy equipment

Hi Ccrrccrr, I opened a request to move engineering vehicle to heavy equipment, the later being I think the correct common name of this category of thing and the former made up and incorrect. Someone has replied by disagreeing, naturally. A wave of opinion may be needed to overcome the inertia of the old made up name. Could you please voice your opinion on this at the bottom of this section of the talk page: Talk:Engineering vehicle#Proposed Move? Thanks! --Roger Chrisman (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Efficacy

Thanks for your thoughts on my edit. The capitalization of "Scripture" is merely pious custom, there really is no need for it. If it doesn't fit with the rest of the article, it can be removed. You are right that it is more specific than the wikipedia article--it is only referring to what Lutherans consider Scripture. Which terms need wikilinking or clarifying? My thoughts are "Scripture", "dead letter" "Holy Spirit", "faith", "spoken, outward Word", and "grace".

I'm not sure what you mean at the end by saying that "reference numbering should be one number per source". I would rather use the refname system to reduce the number of citations, but unfortunately they have different page numbers, even though they come from the same book.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work with the Lutheranism section. I think it is good for now.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Disambiguation

Hi, please tell me where I messed up. I appreciate you pointing out my error and will certainly correct anything that I did incorrectly. J04n(talk page) 11:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point very well taken, thank you. I actually did link many of the 'efficiency' links to Wiktionary, but should have been more careful with the others. J04n(talk page) 12:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Light Bulb Symbolisms Section

Hello there. I feel I have done my best before I added that section onto Wikipedia and I really need other editor(s)' inputs if it is to see much improvements. The editor who removed it repeatedly said it was uncited but offered no constructive contributions. I felt the removal was totally inconsiderate and against the culture of Wikipedia considering it could be tagged as "Lacking Verification" which will encourage other editors to make inputs. In general, the content I added is very widely known and balanced. I can really see it's addition as a positive one. I have refered to other wikipedia articles that have a "Symbolism" section and felt my work was more than qualified for Wikipedia. Not suprisingly, the same one editor was involved in the removal of this section during both instances. --Junsun (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]