# User talk:Cblambert

## Welcome!

Hello, Cblambert, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 22:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome!

## Welcome to WikiProject Electrical engineering

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Electrical engineering! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of all electrical engineering related articles.

We are just starting, so there are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; feel free to participate as much or as little as you like:

You can use Outline of electrical engineering or Index of electrical engineering articles as a starting point.

• If you want to know how good our articles are? Have a look at our assessment department.
• If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any fellow member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you.

Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

SchreyP (messages) 21:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

## Electrical Engineering Project

Freshman404Talk 10:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jack Welch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of Transformer

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Transformer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of QrTTf7fH -- QrTTf7fH (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Sound good to me. I await your reaction.Cblambert (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I have reviewed and approved the article. You can check Talk:Transformer/GA1 for further details. Congratulations and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia QrTTf7fH (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

## Your GA nomination of Transformer

The article Transformer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Transformer for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of QrTTf7fH -- QrTTf7fH (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

That is very nice. I will go over your Talk comments.Cblambert (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

## DYK for Transformer

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

## Additions to the Wikipage of Jack Welch

Hello there! My name is Sunny and I am currently involved in a school project at Cornell University where we must edit a Wiki article with a group of students Kateheinle, Mzw3, The_Da_Crook, and myself. More information about the class as a whole can be found here. We had to choose a C-class level article and decided to choose Jack Welch. I just wanted to reach out to you as I noticed you had recently proposed a change for the page of Jack Welch. I agree that the "Opinions" section should be overturned and really liked the suggestions of making a "Legacy" section instead. So far, I have sources from various news articles and interviews from Welch himself regarding the controversial job number tweet, the future of GE, and the Jack Welch Institute. If you have time, please let me know what you think and if you have other ideas to improve the page overall. Thank you. Sjoo446 (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! I was wondering if you wanted to take a look at the updated Jack Welch page (especially the Legacy Section) for any suggestions on improvements? I liked the chart idea and was looking into it but found the patent list to not have much information, and opted for a different kind of legacy section instead. Sjoo446 (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well done. Addition of Legacy section does indeed provides opportunity to characterized in more sober balanced manner. Proxy for innovation such as patents should ultimately be included. As retired electrical engineer, I nostalgically decry the flight of these former electrical manufacturing giants, GE and Westinghouse, to services including especially financial services. And, in Westinghouse's case, to near bankruptcy and irrelevancy. George Westinghouse and Charles Steinmetz must be rolling in their tombs in disgust. The new electrical manufacturing giants, Siemens, ABB, Toshiba, are all based in Europe or Japan and are all doing very well sticking to the electrical engineering/manufacturing knitting. Jack Welch made a lot of shareholders rich but he turned GE in a soulless organization. Pity.Cblambert (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you again for all your help and contributions! Sadly, we only have this week to make more changes to the page for our class project, but we will definitely consider all of your additional input. Sjoo446 (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

## Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template: Transformer concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template: Transformer, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

## Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template: Transformer concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template: Transformer, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

## Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template: Transformer

Hello, Cblambert. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Template: Transformer".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

## Variable-frequency drive - query about tone?

Hi, I notice you have been active in electrical engineering topics, including GA at Transformer and this article (which you have edited/removed advertising) heavily). Can you take a look at this article as I have a concern that I'm not knowledgeable enough to resolve?

My concern is that - probably quite unintentionally by its authors - the article tone comes over (on the surface) to be generally skewed towards promoting these devices, or making them sound desirable or a significant opportunity, rather than merely factual info about that topic. For example -

• Introduction: VFDs' global market penetration... is still relatively small. That lack of penetration highlights significant ... opportunities
• Benefits: In the United States, an estimated 60-65% of electrical energy is used to supply motors ... Eighteen percent of the energy used in the 40 million motors in the U.S. could be saved by ... improvement technologies such as VFDs
• Benefits: Only about 3% of the total installed base of AC motors are provided with AC drives. However, it is estimated that drive technology is adopted in as many as 30-40% of all newly installed motors.
• At that point there's a table - but it's not of VFD's specifically, but of general motor installations (presumably to show VFD conversion opportunity?)

I wonder whether these aspects of the topic can be better covered under a section "VFD market and adoption" - they are relevant to the topic, but placed as they are, it comes over as pushing this angle rather than providing encyclopedic coverage. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The article was accepted as a GA with this tone. I do not interpret the tone to be skewed or promoting in any special way. VFDs bring about inherently superior economical advantages over fixed-speed drives or mechanical drives, which the article needs to place in perspective the state of the art facts in the revolutionary on-going displacement of variable-frequency drives by many other types of drives. Cblambert (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

## ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

## Recent changes to Leakage inductance

Recent changes to your edits in Expanded Leakage Factor Section (no longer called that). Seem to be without references. I presume that you have the reference. Perhaps you can look. Constant314 (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I have restored multiple-equation derivation expressions along with Expanded Leakage Factor Ratio section. This section has two Hameyer 2001 citations and associated reference in Bibliography. I consider these restored multiple-equation derivation expressions and Hameyer citations to be deductively adequate. Hameyer reference used to be available online but his credentials are impressively authoritative .Cblambert (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I have actually recalled section as Refined leakage flux ratio.Cblambert (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I have lastly recalled section as Refined leakage factor.Cblambert (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
These two equations need a few words of explanation, I think
σP = ΦPσM
σS = ΦSσ'M
Since ΦM is a function of both primary and secondary currents, it would seem that σP and σS are dynamical variables. Perhaps is σP defined under the condition that the secondary is open circuited and σS defined under the condition that the primary is open circuited?
It has been a while. Let me reconstruct the crime before replying.Cblambert (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Since, we say 'Therefore, even if the secondary winding current changes due to the load, ΦM does not change significantly. On the other hand, Φσ varies in proportion to the secondary winding current', ΦM is considered to be a constant, and equations
σP = ΦPσM
σS = ΦSσ'M
apply without, in my view, needing further comment.Cblambert (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I question it, respectfully, on several points.

• The justifying sentence was only added recently by an IP editor today and based, I think, only on his intuition rather than on a reliable source. It did not come from you previously so I doubt that it came from Hameyer.
• Its not true. ΦM is a sinusoidal varying quantity. Its RMS value may be relatively constant under normal conditions. At the very least, this needs to be clarified.
• The statement might be true, in the RMS sense, on a distribution transformer used under its intended load, but would not be true under heavy secondary loading or a short circuit.
• Even if ΦM is relatively constant, σS = ΦSσ'M is still a dynamic quantity and my impression is that σS is a design constant. By its very name, it is a factor which suggests that it is not a time dependent variable.
• Your previous form of these equations were this:
σP = ΦPσM = LPσ/LM
σS = ΦSσ'M = LSσ'/LM
The rightmost form in each equation is a constant rather than a time or load dependent expression. However, it sort of makes sense if ΦPσ and ΦM in the first equation are RMS values defined when the secondary current is zero (secondary open circuit) and ΦSσ' and ΦM in the second equation are RMS values defined when the primary current is zero (primary open circuit).

I do not doubt the authority of Hameyer but I suggest that perhaps Hameyer had some definitions that would make this all make sense. Do you no longer have access to Hameyer? Constant314 (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Back to the drawing board. Hameyer had excellent treatment available online but I must have taken it off due to Wikipedia popularity or something. The Circle Diagram may provides similar insights. Leave it with me a bit more. Otherwise, may need to come up with other supporting references.Cblambert (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
In retrospect, I don't see a problem, as we have at beginning the simplified derivation for leakage factor or Heyland factor given by,
${\displaystyle \sigma =1-{\frac {M^{2}}{L_{P}L_{S}}}=1-k^{2}={\frac {L_{sc}}{L_{oc}}}={\frac {L_{sc}^{sec}}{L_{P}}}={\frac {L_{sc}^{pri}}{L_{S}}}={\frac {i_{oc}}{i_{sc}}}}$.
This simplified leakage factor can by definition be further derived to give the more refined result:
${\displaystyle \sigma =1-{\frac {M^{2}}{L_{P}L_{S}}}=1-{\frac {a^{2}M^{2}}{L_{P}a^{2}L_{S}}}=1-{\frac {L_{M}^{2}}{L_{P}L_{S}^{\prime }}}=1-{\frac {1}{{\frac {L_{P}}{L_{M}}}.{\frac {L_{S}^{\prime }}{L_{M}}}}}=1-{\frac {1}{(1+\sigma _{P})(1+\sigma _{S})}}}$.
The refined leakage factor end result could I suppose be explained but this is optional as it is after all an end result. Maybe we could come with an explanation filling the gap between refined leakage factor end result and refined factor end result explanation but a definition is simply that - a definition.Cblambert (talk)

## MfD nomination of Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Transformer/1

Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Transformer/1, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Transformer/1 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Transformer/1 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Dude, you are commenting on the incorrect page. You need to put any further comments about this GAR at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Transformer/1. Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Transformer/1 is out of process and actually should not exist, I have nominated it for deletion. I probably should have CSD'ed it, but couldn't quite figure out which category to put it in. Shearonink (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I am trying to withdraw my MFD for the Wikipedia TALK page, the GAR discussion should take place at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Transformer/1. Please stop posting on the WP Talk page. Shearonink (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

## Red River Trails

Hello. I restored the original spelling here as the combined terms are a proper way to spell them (including on their Wikipedia articles). If I'm missing something please let me know.

Best wishes, Kablammo (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. Reverso does not recognize sandplain or steamboat but I am ok with combining.Cblambert (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

## ArbCom 2017 election voter message

 Hello, Cblambert. 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)