User talk:Chetvorno

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

I will reply to comments below on this page, in order to keep the dialog in one place

Project Diana[edit]

Hi Chet, My error in not signing in to edit the Project Diana page. The edits are factual.

The presence of the Ocean-Monmouth Amateur Radio Club on the Diana Site can be verified via both organizations websites [1] and [2]

The site is maintained by OMARC. OMARC was at that location before InfoAge was created under the supervision of the Department of Defense BRAC program. The arrangement was to mow lawns, paint buildings, pay for utilities, and be the custodians of the site.

You can verify location on Google, the IRS non-profit website, and the local phone directory.

Regards, Martin Flynn

N2mo (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ www.infoage.org
  2. ^ www.n2mo.org

Elements[edit]

...[1] yes, but distributed models are also represented and analyzed by elements. SpinningSpark 18:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I agree. "Many" should be changed back to "all". Thanks. --ChetvornoTALK 06:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum[edit]

Hi Chetvorno, I think it's good to add back "Society must have laws", but the first four references come from newspaper reporters and bloggers. For the purposes of a formal (or informal) application of logic, these sources are Wikipedia unreliable and should be removed. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The references were not meant to establish that the given sentence is "valid", or that it is used in reliable sources, but just that it is widely used. Reductio ad absurdum is used in both scholarly debate and "informal" arguments such as blogs and newspaper letters, and whether the sentence has the form of a reductio is unrelated to whether it is a good argument. I added the references merely to give examples of the use of this particular reductio in public debate. Maybe I should have made that clear in the citations. --ChetvornoTALK 01:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Reductio is only valid as a deductive argument! In the loose, real-world sense you are using it, it can be alleged to 'prove' any point of view whatsoever, including Machiavelli's or Stalin's societies. The reason is that the informal, empirical argument is always incomplete, or elliptical, and possibly, but not necessarily, unsound. In which case, anything goes.
However, I'm not arguing against this inclusion into the article, because this is indeed a common usage.
Only that according to WP:RS, the first 4 references are just not Wikipedia acceptable. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, of course I agree that some reductios are more valid deductive arguments than others, and we want to use "valid" ones as examples. The problem in WP logic articles is that editors can argue endlessly about the validity of the content and meaning of an example like this, when the point of the example is to show the form of a reductio argument. You and I are agreed that this sentence is good enough to use as an example. The only reason I included the references was because in our recent Talk page argument with him, Rstrug demanded some; I was hoping to forestall another long argument with him. I agree the references are not very good; I'll remove the ones you object to. --ChetvornoTALK 16:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks! I agree with the usage as stated. That one legit reference should be enough for support. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll prove why reductio ad absurdum is dumb later on. You haven't refuted my argument, you've just ignored it. People adhere to the tenets of religion and none of them are laws. Rstrug (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh well. So much for avoiding an argument. --ChetvornoTALK 23:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Hi, I followed up at WP:RMT. Any comments? — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 00:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Brought the request to RM here. Thanks. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 01:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, thanks. --ChetvornoTALK 01:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


Crank Slider Torque[edit]

Hi. Please check the torque equation for the [slider mechanism]. It is not correct as it now is.

The mechanical advantage of a crank, the ratio between the force on the connecting rod and the torque on the shaft, varies throughout the crank's cycle. The relationship between the two is approximately:

[1]

where is the torque and F is the force on the connecting rod.

Surgbc (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Talk fix[edit]

Much better[2], I was getting lost there myself. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a note[edit]

Thanks for all your edits. Glrx (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Your excellent in-depth research on the triode is fascinating, especially the Armstrong correspondence. It seems to me to make a pretty good case that the gas in the tube by itself isn't enough to make the Audion "not a triode". --ChetvornoTALK 08:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
BTW, the Audion article also desperately needs a rewrite. --ChetvornoTALK 08:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The effort to discredit the audion as a gas tube seems misguided. De Forest was a crook and a cad and understood little about what he did; he was willing to lie and fabricate. Despite that, he was an experimenter and was looking to develop amplifiers and detectors, and he had some significant success. I don't see credible sources disputing a vacuum triode invention. I love Langmuir, but his efforts identified two competing theories and proved which one was correct. By 1915, Armstrong understood how vacuum tubes worked and how residual gas caused problems; at the same time, De Forest was confused about those issues. In a sense, Langmuir is more deserving of credit, but De Forest's invention is a vacuum triode even if the vacuum is imperfect.
There are some sources that make the gas distinction, but I don't see them as technically based. De Forest used lightbulb quality vacuum and that was good enough for some applications. De Forest's company did push imperfect vacuum audions; I had but lost a 1940s QST reference that described De Forest selling both hard and soft vacuum tubes. Another, earlier, reference by a De Forest engineer warned users not to operate their audions in the blue glow region because it hardened the vacuum and caused the tubes to stop working. There is material out there for a section about hard/soft vacuum.
A vacuum technology guy explained mean free path and ionization when I was curious about x-rays. He got me to consult a few textbooks, and that has taken me into Townsend avalanches, glow discharges, and arcs. Somewhere along the line I learned of the blue glow in an audion. A couple years ago, I talked with a Stanford PhD (ca 1950s) who claimed they ran working tube circuits with a blue glow, but it was so far in the past that he did not recall the details. He was in his 90s and has died.
Sigh. I used to bump into the late Jim Williams every so often, and sometimes Tom Lee would be around. Lee is fascinating; we had some wonderful discussions about digital filters, electromagnetic weapons, and bored soldiers swallowing the batteries in their IED shock sensors. If I bumped into Lee today, I'd quiz him about audions.
On a related note, I learned today that I B Wright (who commented about gas tubes at Talk:Audion) and Elektrik Fanne (who disputed capacitor purpose was break arc suppression at Talk:Induction coil and Talk:Ignition system) have been indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets. Glrx (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

PAVE PAWS[edit]

Hello, I am doing a small school project on PAVE PAWS. There is lots of confusing data online on where there are ACTIVE PAVE PAWS sites? I believe the only active site using the orginal PAVE PAWS site is 6SWS at Cape Cod. Is this correct? Thank you Terence starzl (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

EMR[edit]

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[edit]

Engineer barnstar.png 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! --ChetvornoTALK 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![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png 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) --ChetvornoTALK 04:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you too[edit]

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! --ChetvornoTALK 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)
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. --ChetvornoTALK 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[edit]

"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. --ChetvornoTALK 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? --ChetvornoTALK 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 (talkcontribs)

Tesla punch list[edit]

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. --ChetvornoTALK 00:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Tesla coil#Oscillation frequency[edit]

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.

Thus the condition for resonance between primary and secondary is

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.[3] 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.

this is the anti-resonant frequency 1
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 is 0.05 to 0.2 in typical coils. Therefore 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 [4], [5], [6] 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 --ChetvornoTALK 04:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)