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


Cable TV[edit]

Reverted and reported. If it gets reverted again it wil be re-reverted again until it trips an automatic page lock.

And if you think you're going to block this IP for `vandalism' go ahead. They've been trying that one for years. I'll just hang up and get another one. There's thousands of computers in the faculty research lab and even more in the doctoral thesis center so you and anybody else who tries it will just be chasing ghosts. Thanks for playing.

Bending Spacetime[edit]

I noticed that you edited out the comments about the external link "Bending Spacetime in the Basement" in the artical "Cavendish Experiment". User CronoDAS has added those comments back. I also feel that this experiment is flawed. The time stamp on the video shows that the weights are moving much too fast. Calculations based on the diameter and shear modulus of the nylon fishing line shows that it is too stiff by at least a factor of 40 to bend under the force of gravity in that experiment.

Prof. Norman Scheinberg, City College of New York, Electrical Eng. Dept.,


Supercool temperatures are an integral part of superconductivity, so a link relating to conditions containing them is perfectly approriate. I am sorry if I missed an important point in the article. Thank you for telling me about you edit, though.--Schrodingers rabbit (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Balance wheel[edit]

Hi! I really like your rewrite of balance wheel. One problem: the second picture (alarm clock balance wheel) seems to be missing. Could you check the spelling of the Image reference? Paul Koning 14:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

GA fail for Cavendish experiment[edit]

I have reluctantly failed Cavendish experiment, which you nominated, as a Good Article candidate. After a thorough review I noted a number of issues which led me to believe the article was unlikely to be able to achieve GA status in the short term.

I have left detailed comments on the article talk page; please feel free to contact me if you have any questions etc regarding the review. Regards, EyeSereneTALK 12:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Chetvorno for the feedback. Cavendish was a remarkable man, and I especially liked that the article clearly distinguishes the fact that he was after density rather than G, which IMO is not really made clear when the experiment is taught to Physics students. All the best with the article ;) EyeSereneTALK 16:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Remontoire article[edit]

Took the liberty of expanding your excellent additions to the "remontoire" page. Feel free to review my additions or correct minor mistakes (I am a horrible speller) I would welcome your comments to my additions

Fortunat Mueller-Maerki, Sussex NJ email: wikipedia: horology Horology (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: S514 Buffy.png[edit]

The picture was too bright on my monitor. It sort of looked like the colors were gonna jump out of the screen and cause a seizure. I'm sure you meant well, but keeping it in its natural brightness and contrast would serve best for those with different computers.--The Scourge (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


Good work in the Dynamo´s section "Modern uses". Regards.--Mac (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think I've caught a virus[edit]

Does WP have to join in viral promotion?

I certainly hope not.

But the sum of modern life (or what passes for it) is one big viral promotion, baby. Um I mean: Verifiably, this is a sleb-obsessed world. I suppose those people obsessed by slebs will be obsessed with the brands of what are strapped onto those slebs. (Curiously, though, the only hit for "watch" in the article on Queen Angelina is "Watch this page".)

And of course there's also the argument that now the cheapest watch has a degree of accuracy that could only have been dreamed of forty years ago, it's the branding, promotion, etc that matter, presumably, and the gubbins inside the case are of minor importance.

If I were autocrat of Wikipedia, I'd be tempted to limit articles on wristwatch companies to the point where affordable, reliable quartz watches came out, and outlaw coverage of what follows as the percentage of silliness and trivia is just too high. (This would go together with other summary edicts banning articles on people until ten years after their deaths, articles on anything related to Starwarstrek, etc etc etc.) But don't worry, there's little chance that I'll become autocrat of Wikipedia. -- Hoary (whose wrist is itching in the heat and who thus is wearing nothing whatever in the customary place) 09:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


Hi Chetvorno. On June 6 you may this edit on the "frequency" article, see this diff: diff:

In experimental work (for example, calculating the frequency of an oscillating pendulum) it is more accurate to measure the time taken for a fixed number of occurrences, rather than the number of occurrences within a fixed time. The latter method introduces a random error of 1 count, causing an error of 1/f Hz in the result. Frequency is still calculated by dividing the number of occurrences by the time interval; however it is the number of occurrences that is fixed, not the time interval.

Which I changed, since the dimensions of the error in the frequency have the wrong dimension, and the random error has a maximum of one count, but is in between 0 and 1 count. So I changed it to this:

In experimental work (for example, calculating the frequency of an oscillating pendulum) it is more accurate to measure the time taken for a fixed number of occurrences, rather than the number of occurrences within a fixed time. The latter method introduces — if N is the number of counted occurrences — a random error between zero and one count, so on average half a count, causing an biased underestimation of f by ½ f / (N + ½) in its expected value. In the first method, which is more accurate, frequency is still calculated by dividing the number of occurrences by the time interval; however it is the number of occurrences that is fixed, not the time interval.

For which you now ask a reference, which I do not have. The whole thing is just simple statistics: in a fixed time T there are counted N events, and the frequency is simply computed as fA=N/T. But by using integer counting a fraction of the last cycle may be missing in the count, somewhere in between 0 and 1. On average the error is half a cycle. A better estimate would be fB=(N+½)/T. Taking fB to be the better estimate, the bias is fB - fA =½ / T = ½ fB / (N+½).

So, since I can not produce a reference for this, you can remove it as OR. Or you can remove the {fact} template. If you leave it as is, this {fact} template may be there for ages. I leave it up to you. Best regards, -- Crowsnest (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2008. (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Drusilla screenshot.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Drusilla screenshot.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 07:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Displacement Current[edit]

Regarding your recent edits to the 'Displacement Current' article, are you aware that Maxwell's reasons for introducing displacement current were not connected with the capacitor? It is a common myth to believe so. The displacement current which Maxwell derived from equation (105) in his 1861 paper, and which relates to wireless telegraphy, is not exactly the same concept as the modern displacement current term which relates to equation (138) in that same Maxwell paper. The latter is the one that is relevant to capacitors and cable telegraphy, and there is nothing that necessarily links it to Ampère's circuital law. Hence, the necessity that you are talking about may not exist at all. David Tombe (talk) 06:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made some alterations to the explanation section. This ought to clarify the whole isse. It means that there is perhaps no longer any need for you to elaborate on anything in your 'necessity' section. The modern day displacement current is clearly the equal and opposite of the diveregent component of the real current. This ensures a zero divergence for the summation of the two, and keeps both Ampère's Circuital Law and the Biot-Savart law solenoidal. It's clearly a fudge, but that's what it says in the textbooks. David Tombe (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Chris Burk, The Wikipedia article "Displacement Current" is no. 1 hit on Google out of 200,000. My published article "Displacement Current" is no. 2. Please explain to me how I put in a hyperlink to my article in the Wikipedia article for "Displacement Current". That would open up a window for readers to all the work I have done and published on the subject for 50 years. . Ivor Catt . — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me ask you first, has your article been published in any peer-reviewed journals? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and requires that sources given on its pages be Reliable sources, meaning peer-reviewed journals or sources consistent with peer-reviewed journals. Your article seems to take the position that displacement current doesn't exist, which as you may know is contrary to standard electromagnetic theory. Unless your theory has support in the mainstream scientific community, you cannot put a link to your page in a Wikipedia article. I suggest you look at Wikibooks; there is no requirement for reliable sources there and you could write a whole article about your theory. Cheers. --ChetvornoTALK 13:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and a request[edit]

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Atomic clock[edit]

Thanks for your post on the atomic clock talk page -- I've posted a reply there. Terry0051 (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


Hey, I saw your name on Wikipedia:PRV, and noticed that you are interested in electrical engineering. I was wondering if you would be up for copyediting Stella Power Station, as it is currently a FAC and a comment which has came up is that it needs a thorough copyediting. I look forward to heading back, Fintan264 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of part of intro to QM article[edit]

Here is a link to a rewrite I have started.[[1]] It only concerns the material to be explained up to and including Heisenberg. It's still a little rough, and I would fix a couple of things except that I have to deliver somebody to an airport 45 minutes away and the lady wants me on her doorstep within the next two hours. (It's now 2:15 a.m.)

I would like to add one graphic element for each of the mysteries, starting with a helium light tube delivering (what appears to be) red light, a prism, and the bright line spectrum.

I wrote this all from memory, so I need to do some fact checking. When I wrote it a couple days ago I thought it looked pretty flat. Maybe it is not quite as leaden as I thought. Anyway, that is a question of style and editing for "snap." It is the ideas that were driving people like Heisenberg nuts in the early 1920s that we have to get across.

Please give me your thoughts, criticisms, etc.


P0M (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. After the above saved I noticed something about your being interested in electrical engineering! Maybe you can help. Heisenberg's matrix mechanics has had me stalled at that point in the article for the last couple of years. There is actually something beautiful in his theoretical expression, but it may previously have been seen only in his mind. Most people complain that they do not understand his article of 1925. Aitchison's article has been the most help, but he was writing for people at the top of his field and he left some gaps that are too big to jump over. For my own purposes in understanding what Heisenberg was doing, I need to understand the matrices. Aitchison's article makes it clear that the matrices other people have been making up are not the matrices that would have flowed from the equations he used. I could see that there was a problem with the way others were doing it, but it took a visit the local QM guru to straighten me out.

It is obvious that Heisenberg had all the theory-derived data he would have needed to fill out matrices for frequency of photons, energies, of photons. What he did not have, in the beginning, was a way to calculate the transition amplitudes. One way he could have obtained these amplitudes would have been to take the square roots of empirical measurements -- but then he would have a "theory" that just fed the original measurements back to him. He goes through a great deal of math, complete with old-fashioned German letters, constants that everybody recognizes but me, etc. He takes classical equations and turns them into difference equations. And in the middle of getting to where he would need to get to be able to calculate these amplitudes (much the same way that the speed of light can come out of electrical equations that on the surface would seem to have nothing to do with measuring the speed of light), he seems to see that he knows how to do that, and that everybody who is going to read his article will know how to do that. So he jumps to saying that he now can see how to calculate the quantum theoretical equivalent of the square of the amplitudes, and all of the complications on both sides of a hairy equation drop away leaving something beautifully simple -- if you somehow know what the numerical value of the amplitudes are.

Since people with far, far better qualifications than I have found the whole article rather incomprehensible, I am not worried that I do not see how he did his math. But I would like to be able to generate the same numbers, or actually part of them (it's an infinite set, after all), and plug them into their own matrix to see whether they would give reasonable intensity values. One of the problems that I just identified is that there are several different things that get called "amplitudes" in quantum mechanics as it is taught today.

I think that I can explain what he needed to calculate. If BBC is operating a shortwave station at a certain broadcasting frequency, one can sometimes hear the programming at some multiple of the anticipated frequency. That means that the transmitting antenna is putting out energy at multiples of its fundamental frequency. Surely people who design antennas can calculate the amplitudes of not only the fundamental frequency but also of the harmonics. Ideally I would like a formula that gives the peak amplitude broadcast at any frequency given the fundamental frequency and the broadcast wattage of the transmitter. What I need are peak values, because with the hydrogen bright-line spectrum the intensities of each line is constant over time. Thanks.P0M (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


No problem; I'm having a hard time figuring out where to put that info on sand into the article. So don't think I'm forgetting about it; I think I'll just have to edit a few articles to make it work together well. Also, if you have any random questions on sediment, feel free to drop a message on my talk. Awickert (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Animation on pendulum article[edit]

Hi. I see you've done a lot of good work on the pendulum article and seem to be a knowledgeable contributor. I have a question about the animation near the top of the article, which shows the acceleration vector pointing straight up at the midpoint of the pendulum. How is this possible? At the midpoint, the gravitational force pulling down and the tension force pulling up are balanced, and there should therefore be zero acceleration, not a large upwards acceleration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that pendulum animation has raised questions from several people and certainly needs more explanation. I don't know whether to delete it or add a long explanation. The acceleration vector is a sum of two contributions: a tangential component along the pendulum's path due to gravity, and a radial component caused by its curved path. As you say, at the bottom the gravity force is balanced, so the tangential component is momentarily zero. The acceleration comes from its curved path. Since the rod forces the bob to move in a circular arc, it experiences a centripetal acceleration proportional to its speed, directed toward the pivot. Note that at the ends of the swing, the speed is zero so the centripetal acceleration is zero, and only the tangential gravity component is present, so the acceleration vector is directed along the line of swing. --ChetvornoTALK 17:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


Heterodyning was first invented as a technique to receive Morse code radiotelegraph CW signals during the...

You seem to have an unfinished sentence. I thought at firt you might have meant WWI, but the date for its invention is 1901 so I cannot figure during what you intended. SpinningSpark 12:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Euler diagram[edit]

It is a nice diagram . . . but I can't take credit for it; it was at the bottom of the article in the "Gallery" and I just moved it up so it aligned with the text where it seemed to belong. It is a pretty cool diagram, isn't it? Bill Wvbailey (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

I see that your name is on the peer review volunteers list. Any chance that you could take at look at distributed element filter? I have requested a peer review, but there have been no takers for a week. Thanks, SpinningSpark 18:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't feel I have the time, and I'm not sure I have the expertise in this specialized field. Good luck. --ChetvornoTALK 20:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


I've tried a compromise wording about Ibn Yunus and the pendulum in the Pendulum article. Please let me know if you think there's a problem with what I've done. (I've added the same text to the Ibn Yunus article, where I had previously also just deleted the claim.)

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for catching the {{refs}} template I left in by mistake. –Syncategoremata (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Balance spring[edit]

I moved the section "Harmonic oscillator" (now "How it works") to the end in order to help resolve the Too Technical tag of balance spring by sorting the sections in order of increasing technical content. But you moved it back to the first section. Could the section be moved to the end again? Obankston (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were in the middle of an edit. I'll move the section to the end again and let you proceed. However I do think some of the content of that section should be at the top. I agree with moving the equation to the end. But I do think the article needs a 'How it works' section at top to explain in detail what the balance spring is and does - that it is an integral part of the balance wheel; it reverses the direction of the balance wheel so it oscillates back and forth. I may have been too technical in introducing the terms harmonic oscillator and restoring force at the beginning, but they do need to be introduced somewhere. Cheers --ChetvornoTALK 05:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I added a summary of 'How it works' to the lead, and made the phrase restoring force linked. The first section is History, because the majority of people coming to this article are interested in the historical development, rather than in the technical physics of how it works. Obankston (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Electrical Control Inventor - New Article - New User[edit]

Hello, and thank you for offering help. I'm brand new at this. I've put an article on my sandbox which I would like to have reviewed before submitting as an article. It's basicly a short bio but since the man is an inventor I'd like to see the article be placed on the inventors page. Thank you. (mike)michaeljamesadamsMichaeljamesadams (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Author's "we"[edit]

I don't necessarily disagree with your rewording but I just thought I would point out that the MoS does not instruct against the "author's we" of technical writing. It is the personal we that the MoS dictates against. SpinningSpark 19:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right; I didn't read that part of WP:MoS closely enough. Please feel free to revert my edits, and thanks a lot for the heads up. --ChetvornoTALK 22:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I'm sorry I didn't answer your April request for peer reviewers for distributed element filter, my (non-WP) life was hectic at that point. --ChetvornoTALK 22:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem, but it's still stuck at FAC if you feel like contributing now. It was at FAC for a very long time at which point the FAC directors restarted it because it had got "too complicated". SpinningSpark 00:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Litz wire[edit]

You've been editing Litz wire. Although your intentions are right, you are making factual errors. Litz wire is not used at high frequency because the strands would be too thin. AF and RF are poor qualitative descriptors and misleading. I'm leaning toward undoing your last edit because I don't know of a clear fix. (I'm watching this page.) Glrx (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Charge Conservation[edit]

Thanks for your kind words on my Charge Conservation contribution, and thanks especially for catching my accidental deletion so promptly. David C Bailey (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Mechanical watch image[edit]

Hi chris, could the following image be reworked ?: (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[edit]

I gave user: a 24 hour block for the magnet and fuel cell vandalisms. Thank you for warning him. RJFJR (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I see he's a new user with no previous warnings on his talk page. Isn't the usual practice to give vandals some warnings before blocking them? --ChetvornoTALK 16:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about Circuit dreamer orginal research[edit]

Please see WP:NORN#Wien bridge oscillator Glrx (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Circuit dreamer and his disruptive editing[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Circuit dreamer and his disruptive editing. Thank you. Glrx (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for the support. I honestly felt like I woke up and accidentally logged into Bizarro-Wikipedia.

The odd thing is that I'm very sympathetic to the concerns of editors like you who have to deal with him.

He's wrong, and I told him so, here and here.

I won't be surprised if he ends up with an indef ban, but I think he deserves fair warning. I'm troubled that I've been unable to make that point effectively.--SPhilbrickT 12:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree he probably won't listen and will have to be banned. I wouldn't really mind if he was banned right away, but I objected because it sets a bad precedent for other cases; it's a slippery slope to ignore consensus building. --ChetvornoTALK 16:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


The problem is that there are two sections with the same name - Examples and Examples of resonance. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 19:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Simple machines[edit]

I believe you acted a bit too hastily in reverting my 25 edits. I believe that you and I disagree only in the definition "a simple machine transforms the direction and magnitude of a force," yet you reverted many other edits that had nothing to do with this sentence. Furthermore, I did not delete this sentence I simply moved it to a later section. You ask for citations regarding the ways modern machines are analyzed however I never addressed that in this article. I maintained the historical perspective that simple machines are combined to form complex machines. The fact that elementary schools and high schools teach the six simple machines is not justification for ignoring the fact that during the Industrial Revolution the number of simple machines grew to over 800. The citations for this are in the article, which are the page from the 1728 Encyclopedia of Technology and the Reuleaux collection of simple machines. Prof McCarthy (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there any chance you will reconsider?[edit]

Chetvorno, is there any chance you will reconsider the elimination of my edits that had no impact on the sentence "simple machine transforms the magnitude and direction of a force." You can keep this because you feel the many references to it in elementary school webpages makes it important. However, the remaining edits to not touch on this issue. Please reinstate these edits. Prof McCarthy (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I interpret your silence as agreement?[edit]

I have asked in several different ways for you to reconsider you mass elimination of my edits to the article on simple machines, when you only seem to value the particular phrase "a simple machine transforms the magnitude and direction of a force." All I did was move it to a later section, and you reverted all 25 of my edits to get it back into the lead. However, I have yet to hear from you. I would like to interpret your silence as agreement with me adding the non-controversial edits back into the article and leave this sentence alone. I cannot find any other issue in your comments on my edits. Prof McCarthy (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Friction and self-locking[edit]

Chetvorno, a far as I can tell you wrote the section on self-locking in simple machines. It seems that this is applies most directly to the inclined plane, wedge, and screw. A direct analysis of these systems shows that the derivation provided in the references is overly simplified. It is possible to use the derivation of the mechanical advantage of these devices in the presence of friction directly. I propose to delete this section from the article on simple machines and add the derivations to the articles on the inclined plane, wedge and screw. If you disagree, please let me know. Prof McCarthy (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience with my revisions to the article on simple machines. I hope you find the result to be acceptable. Prof McCarthy (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Your comment[edit]

Chetvorno, I read with interest your comment of 10 Feb 2012, related to an earlier edit of mine on the Electronic Oscillator page: "That was a controversial edit added by a disruptive editor who has been blocked several times." Can you please explain this comment? Trevithj (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm really very sorry, Trevithj. I wasn't referring to you but to Circuit dreamer who has a history of disruptive editing of that article. I screwed up and conflated the terms "negative resistance" and "negative feedback". By "controversial edit" I was mistakenly referring to Circuit dreamer's repeated introduction of the term "negative resistance" into the harmonic oscillator section, which doesn't have anything to do with positive or negative feedback, the subject of your edit. Please accept my apologies for inadvertently dragging your name through the mud :) --ChetvornoTALK 22:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
After reviewing the Electronic oscillator Talk page, I see what you mean, and can see how the confusion could happen. Thank you for clarifying this. Apology accepted, and no hard feelings - the name has been dragged thru worse, and survived! ;-)
PS; On reflection, I take some blame for the confusion. I see now I should have posted to a different section, and not under the Negative Resistance topic. Live and learn! Trevithj (talk) 23:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
PPS; I followed your suggestion and moved the talk off Talk:Electronic oscillator to Glrx's talk page. Trevithj (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

Hi Chris, super article. I built several neat crystal sets in Milwaukee, in 1956 and luckily didn't electrocute myself with some of my poor choices. But they worked super. My dad bought me a 1n34a diode at a tv store for 75 cents (the cost of 25 rolls of lifesavers at the time) Now, 58 years later, I took a neat pair of 1930's headphones and a diode from radio shack, Two for $1.49 (or about the cost of 2 rolls of lifesavers now), took the "radio" to a local 580 Mhz 2 Kw station WTAG Worcester MA, but heard nothing parked, illegally, 100' from the antenna. I suspect the diode. Do you have a suggestion for a next historical experiment? I want cheap solid state between the clip leads. No galena deposits in central Massachusetts. Thanks Bradshaw amateur radio K1TE, ex WA1RBB and WN2IVF.

Picture of my failed experimental crystal radio. (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Reflective array antenna
The Avett Bros.
Quad antenna
Regenerative loop antenna
26665 Sidjena
Antonia Thomas
Coaxial antenna
The Exes
Turnstile antenna
Inverted vee antenna
Danger Rangers
Maximum usable frequency
Kalasalingam University
MS Moby Prince
Slot antenna
Frequency drift
Gustavia superba
T. J. Bass
Polymer capacitor
Current limiting
Covert agent
Unfinished (How I Met Your Mother)
Radio electronics
Microstrip antenna
Image response
Add Sources
List of pies, tarts and flans
Folded unipole antenna
Mainflingen transmitter
Weiskirchen transmitter
Velocity dispersion
Frequency coordinator
Radio navigation
Shelter Island (How I Met Your Mother)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Patch/Microstrip antennas[edit]

Hi Chetvorno,

No I, don't mind your clarification at all, it's helpful. Do you have an opinion about merging the two pages? GyroMagician (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I took a look and agree with your merger. Since your tag has been on two months, I'd say go ahead with it. --ChetvornoTALK 16:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Requesting review of Folding@home[edit]

Hi there Chetvorno,

I saw that you've listed your name over at WP:PRV. I've been enthusiastically editing pretty extensively on Folding@home, and achieved GA status early last month. It's an article about a powerful distributed computing project which simulates protein folding for disease research, so I thought you might be interested. I'd like to improve the article as much as I can, and perhaps even reach FA status, so if you have a moment, I'd sure appreciate any advice or suggestions you may have. I've opened a peer review. Thank you for your time, Jesse V. (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear weapon edits[edit]

I noticed you recent edits there. Why do you regard "gun-type device" as being misleading? It seems a good description of the design of the Hiroshima package. --John (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The text I changed read: "On 6 August 1945, a uranium gun-type device code-named "Little Boy" was detonated over the Japanese city of Hiroshima." Remember that this is in the introduction, that will be read by nontechnical people with no science education or knowlege of nuclear weapons. They will have no idea that "gun-type device" refers to the internal workings of a bomb. They could easily assume that the sentence refers to some type of gun that shot uranium at the city. Probably the term "gun-type" should be removed from the introduction altogether. --ChetvornoTALK 16:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Good point, I hadn't thought of that. --John (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Italic titles[edit]

Short story titles are not italicized. Thank you. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, my mistake. --ChetvornoTALK 15:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Phased-array TV antennas[edit]

Phased array TV antennas are commonly used in Europe and Australia for wideband UHF reception

AP369 Alcad phased array specifications

Thanks for keeping the TV Antennas wiki clean =] Dezmonditoz (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Those are usually called "bow-tie" antennas in the US television industry. --ChetvornoTALK 00:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

RF burns[edit]

Do you have a source for the statement you added to Radio frequency? I don't doubt it is true, but I would sure like to read more about determining that to be the mechanism. —EncMstr (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking for an authoritative source. The issue mostly comes up in connection with Tesla coils; experimenters have allowed the long arcing streamers from Tesla coils, at potentials of hundreds of thousands of volts, to pass through their bodies without getting shocks; see Tesla coil#High frequency electrical safety. Around the turn of the century, there was a whole field of quack medicine called electrotherapy, pioneered by Paul Oudin and Jacques d'Arsonval in which high voltage RF current from Tesla coils was applied to the body for therapeutic purposes. See Thomas Curtis (1916) High Frequency Apparatus, p.6, C. J. Mieny Principles of Surgical Patient Care, 2nd Ed., p.136, James O'Neill (2007) Prodigal Genius: The life of Nikola Tesla, 96-97, D.C. Winburn Practical Electrical Safety, p.12 --ChetvornoTALK 14:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Nice! Okay, I'll leave it to you to add a citation (or three?!). Thanks! —EncMstr (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I will; I should have sourced the statements when I added them. Just give me a day to find some good sources. Thanks for catching that. --ChetvornoTALK 22:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Also see Electrosurgery, a common, practical application of this principle. --AJim (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Colpitts oscillator[edit]

Is there a particular reason you removed the citation template for the Colpitts patent? You used templates in other places. Glrx (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I was in a hurry and I couldn't get the patent diagrams from that Espacenet patent search website to come up in my browser (I use Opera). Also it didn't seem to have the patent text. I normally use the standard citation templates, but I lost my temper. Go ahead and restore it if you want. --ChetvornoTALK 17:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I hope things are better now. Glrx (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Crystal oscillator[edit]

Hey Chetvorno, given your interest in horology (and crystal oscillators) I have a project I think you'd find really interesting. Sorry for contacting you here, I couldn't find you elsewhere on the web. You can reach me at kevinrose [at] google (more about me can be found here: and here: ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekevinrose (talkcontribs) 05:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you c

Hi Chetvorno, first a happy and a peaceful new year.

But to my problem. You deleted my remark "component" in the article Crystal oscillator. But have a look, in the article "Crystal oscillator" in all paragraphs the behavior and the parameter of a quartz crystall is described. You can't find any description of an oscillator in this article. The meaning of "oscillator" in this case is not unique. "to oscillate" is here a mechanical behavior of the quartz crystal and has lead in the past to the term "Crystal oscillator" as an oscillating component. The term Quartz crystal has a redirect to Quartz. If you want to describe an oscillator the term Electronic oscillator will be used. I am sorry, but Crystal oscillator is not an oscillator but an electro-mechanical component. It is very much easier in the German language, here the term "Schwingquarz" say directly that the quartz is oscillating (schwingen). If you agree I will add my remark "component" in a few days again. kind regards--Elcap (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, in engineering usage, the term "crystal oscillator" refers to the circuit, and the resonator itself is referred to as a "crystal" or "quartz crystal", which of course have more general meanings in ordinary usage. The editors who wrote the article have been unfamiliar or have deliberately finessed this; see the citations I added to the article. I've been meaning to bring this up again on the talk page, whether we need a new article, Piezoelectric crystal or Piezoelectric resonator, that would cover the resonator itself, because the bulk of the article is about the resonator. --ChetvornoTALK 15:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I never saw the discussion before. If you or someone else can moove the excisting article to "Quartz crystal" or "Quartz crystal resonator" it may be a good solution, because the contend of the article fits for the resonator. --Elcap (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
You were absolutely right, the article and its introduction were inconsistent. I should have discussed it on the talk page before reverting you. It was good to bring that up. --ChetvornoTALK 15:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Peer review?[edit]

Hello, I was wondering if you would be interesting in Peer Reviewing Millennium Force. Another editor has already started a review but his time on Wikipedia has been limited and suggested I should contact another peer reviewer. If not, I understand. Thanks,-- Astros4477 (Talk) 02:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi, I know this is going to sound exactly the same as the message above but you are the only peer review volunteer that falls under the roller coaster category. Anyways, I was wondering if you would be able to give a peer review for the SheiKra article as I plan to nominate for FA status in the near future. If you don't want to review it, that is fine.--Dom497 (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for asking me, but I think I would be a poor choice for that article. I have no expertise and have only been on a roller coaster once in my life. I am sure there must be many others with a better idea of what such an article should cover. Good luck. --ChetvornoTALK 15:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Requesting peer review of Edward Manville[edit]

I have requested a peer review for the article Edward Manville. Would you be interested in doing the review? I asked you because Manville was an electrical engineer and, as chairman of the Birmingham Small Arms Company and its subsidiary, the Daimler Company, he was also involved in "other branches of engineering".

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for asking me. I just don't have enough time to give it the attention it deserves. --ChetvornoTALK 02:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. I understand. May what you're working on now work well. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Thermonuclear weapon[edit]

Hi. You precisely shared my own concerns, and I apologise for not alerting you earlier regarding my converastion with administrator Kudpung on his talkpage. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your contacting the administrator about this; it didn't occur to me. Yeah, I was hoping we could turn this guy from the dark side, but his latest antisemitic rant shows he's got an agenda. Too bad; he's from eastern Europe and he obviously knows something about history, he could have made a good editor. --ChetvornoTALK 20:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It knows just enough to be superficially plausable, but without the real in-depth knowledge required to confront and explode its own simplistic, paranoid conspiratorial world-view. WP is no place for "editors" like that. Cheers Irondome (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Floating ground[edit]

Hi there! I spent a while today working on rewriting the floating ground article. I think the result is significantly clearer and more helpful (but then, I would!). If you have a chance to swing by, it'd be great to get some feedback. I don't think I've said anything too stupid, but it wouldn't be the first time! Rswarbrick (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for asking me. I'll take a look. Should I reply on Talk:Floating ground? --ChetvornoTALK 19:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Energy "cannot be observed directly but can be calculated from its state"[edit]

Hi Chetvorno,

The lede of energy says

In physics, energy is a conserved extensive property of a physical system, which cannot be observed directly but can be calculated from its state.

When measuring energy, the general reader may might not think of it as measuring state variables and calculating energy from them. To the general reader, this may be a fine distinction and isn't stated elsewhere in the article.

What do you think about removing the part after the comma? It can still be stated and explained elsewhere in the article.

DavRosen (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, I don't like that phrase. I didn't add it, just edited something that was already there. I see you've been rewriting the lede, I'm sure it can use work. I don't think I'm going to be much involved with the article further; I mainly did my rewrite just because the previous state of the article was so bad. So go for it. --ChetvornoTALK 15:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Of possible interest[edit]


I'm putting this here to try to keep from starting anything else started on the double-slit article. I think the article is good enough for now. One of my college era housemates teaches physics and writes good books on the subject. I once showed him an article, which was deleted from Wikipedia on the grounds that it wasn't important enough, and his reaction was something like this: "First you have the math, and then you have people trying to explain in words what the math means. The article is one interpretation." (I guess I should dig his email up, but that was at least my take-away.) I think the author's way of putting things in ordinary language is very helpful, so I'll give you a link to the edited and preserved article here.

I would add one quotation from Niels Bohr's Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, p. 7:

Just as the general concept of relativity expresses the essential dependence of any phenomenon on the frame of reference used for its coordination in space and time, the notion of complementarity serves to symbolize the fundamental limitation, met with in atomic physics, of the objective existence of phenomena independent of the means of their observation.



P0M (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Back again. A contributor/editor has recently reopened the question covered above. Or at least I think he has reopened the same question. I'm having a little difficulty following his prose. I suspect that he is correct on one point: There is no published experiment designed to show that if a detector is added at one slit or the other then a photon goes through one slit or the other. I haven't been able to find such an experiment; to the contrary I find some indications that it is meaningless to ask what the path of the photon is. All that can be said is that with a detector in place a photon shows up either at the end of the left path or the right path. I'm not even finding a clear assertion of that presumed fact.

The new editor is probably going to do something to the article, so I'd like to resolve this question in a proper way. Do you have anything to contribute?

Thanks.P0M (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Best wishes. Seek peer review[edit]

Hi. Could you do a peer review of this article, Ense3. It was translated from the french article. Thanks in advance for your time. Emekadavid (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Double-slit experiment[edit]

I didn't understand what you were referring to with "see Talk page". I reverted mainly because your revert was malformed, but I'd like to understand the point of the rest, too. Probably taking it to the article talk page is a good idea. Dicklyon (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

P0M, DParlevliet, and I have been having a rather long-winded dispute about the sentence: "Furthermore, versions of the experiment that include particle detectors at the slits find that each photon of light passes through one slit (as would a classical particle), but not through both slits (as would a wave)" on the Talk page. See the headings: Questionable formulation and Better citation about detectors. I feel the 5 citations at the end of the sentence thoroughly support this version, but they feel it isn't accurate to talk about which slit the photon "goes through", even with detectors behind them. Since they were the majority, in the interest of terminating the debate I went along with a suggestion of P0M to weaken the statement, but I prefer the version you restored. --ChetvornoTALK 07:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I just saw a reference to these communications when I logged on. I haven't had time or inspiration to think out the full implications of any interpretations that may be made as to the travel of an unseen photon, electron, etc. Meanwhile, the article on the Wheeler experiment is being greatly changed by DParlevliet. I often do not understand what he is trying to say. I may not be able to summon the energy to try to keep/get the Wheeler article correct.
In QED Feynmann says almost exactly what I say, criticizing himself for accidentally dropping back into "what everybody knows" speak, and then a page later he is talking about where the photons have gone. It's frustrating.P0M (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Balance wheel[edit]

Your reverted an edit of mine on temperature compensated balance wheels. I noted in my edit that the compensation doesn't cause the balance to turn faster or slower and you replied "Yes, it does. Lower moment of inertia = higher acceleration = higher angular velocity = higher freq, compensating for freq lowering effect of spring."

I understand what you mean, but the balance can't actually be allowed (by the designer) to oscillate at a higher frequency to compensate for the frequency lowering effect of spring, because if it did, then the watch would not keep accurate time. The objective of the designer of the watch is to keep the balance oscillating, as nearly as possible, at the *same* frequency all the time, whatever the temperature.

What actually happens is that as the higher temperature causes the spring to become weaker, the moment of inertia of the balance is reduced by the curving in of the bimetallic arms of the balance. These two effects happen together, and the reduction in the moment of inertia of the balance is designed to keep in step with (to "compensate" for) the reduced strength of the balance spring, so that as the spring becomes weaker it can still accelerate the balance at the same rate as before, and the balance then oscillates at the same frequency, preserving the timekeeping of the watch.

I hope this clarifies things and the reason for my edit. I don't want to get into a to and fro reverting each others edits so I hope we can reach an agreement that we are both happy with.

David.Boettcher 18:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be abrupt or callous in reverting your edit. I agree with your analysis above. But I felt that your wording, "A temperature increase makes the arms bend inward toward the center of the wheel, and the shift of mass inward reduces the moment of inertia of the balance, compensating for the reduced couple produced by the weaker balance spring" was not as clear for readers lacking a science background as the ice skater analogy. However I take your point that the original wording promotes the misconception that the compensation causes the balance frequency to "change". Let me look at it again. --ChetvornoTALK 20:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the ice skater analogy is appropriate in the context of a balance wheel, and in fact it could lead to the misunderstanding that the balance wheel speeds up in the same way that the skater does. However, I agree that the wording could be a bit challenging for some readers so I have expanded it to make it easier to understand. I have also linked to the moment of inertia page where the ice skater analogy is well used. David.Boettcher 11:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Would it be okay if we moved the above thread to the balance wheel Talk page and continue it there so others can take part? --ChetvornoTALK 20:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course that would be fine. David.Boettcher 11:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

2 May edit[edit]

"These early balance wheels were crude timekeepers because they lacked the other essential element: the balance spring. Early balance wheels rotated freely in each direction until the escapement pushed it back the other way. In such an "inertial' wheel, the acceleration is proportional to the drive force. This made the timekeeping strongly dependent on the force applied by the escapement, so the watch slowed down as the mainspring unwound and lost force during its running period."

I don't think this explanation is really "inproved" at all. Aside from the illogicality of the first sentence (what does "crude" mean? And if the balance spring is "essential" why don't quartz watches have them?) the balance wheel did not "rotate freely" until pushed back by the escapement. The swinging balance pushes the escapement, train and mainspring backwards, until the point is reached at which the force exerted by the mainspring through the train overcomes the inertia of the balance, halting and then reversing it, accelerating it in the opposite direction until the escapement "escapes" and the force acting on the swinging balance is reversed. So couldn't it be said that the balance and mainspring are coupled together by the escapement and train act as an harmonic oscillator? And if not, why not?

The statement that "the acceleration is proportional to the drive force" is simply Newtons second law, but it doesn't necessarily follow that this made the timekeeping strongly dependent on the force applied by the escapement. If the balance and mainspring were acting as an harmonic oscillator, then the large oscillations with the spring fully wound and the smaller ones as it ran down should be iscochronous, i.e. bigger force, faster acceleration, larger arcs vs. smaller force, less acceleration and smaller arcs - but of the same period.

I hesitate to rewrite this section because I don't think I can explain it any better myself at the moment, but I am sure that it is not correct as it stands.


David.Boettcher 15:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Boettcher (talkcontribs)

I think the first sentence is fine. The word "crude" could be replaced with "inaccurate", although IMO "crude" is an apt description of early balance wheels' timekeeping. It was explained in the introduction that the balance spring is an "essential" part of modern balance wheels, not quartz watches.
A verge escapement with a springless balance wheel (a verge and foliot escapement) is not a harmonic oscillator, it is a relaxation oscillator 1, 2, 3 The mainspring/balance wheel combination cannot function as a harmonic oscillator because (1) the high friction of the pallets consumes much of the recoil energy (2) the drive torque function T(θ), due to the varying point of contact of the tooth with the pallet, is somewhat nonlinear, (3) T(θ) also has hysteresis, and (4) the force of the mainspring is not proportional to angle θ as a restoring force would have to be, it is constant.
The equation of motion, during the recoil period as well as the drive period, is
I\ddot{\theta} = T(\theta) \,
(assuming no wheel friction) where I is the moment of inertia and T is the escapement drive torque. The acceleration is proportional to T, and as a result the frequency is roughly proportional to the square root of the drive force provided by the mainspring, so it certainly does follow that that the timekeeping is "strongly dependent" on drive force.
A sprung balance wheel, by itself, is a harmonic oscillator, and if driven by a "detached" escapement would be substantially isochronous. However, when driven by a verge escapement it is not isochronous, and without a balance spring it is nowhere near isochronous. The wheel does not swing in "larger arcs" as a response to increased drive force as you claim; the friction of the escapement dissipates most of the additional energy each period, so the arc doesn't increase much, the wheel just gets pushed back and forth faster. See Anchor escapement#Comparison of motion in anchor and deadbeat, the anchor works similarly.
That said, I'm not completely happy with the current wording. I agree the statement that the wheel "rotates freely... until... pushed back the other way" could be improved.
BTW, you can sign your posts by typing ~~~~
--ChetvornoTALK 11:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, yes; I was doing some seriously woolly thinking there and managed to get myself into rather a mindset, the reference the anchor escapement helped me to break out of that, thanks.
However, before I looked at the anchor escapement explanation I spent some time trying to understand your statement that ... the friction of the escapement dissipates most of the additional energy each period, so the arc doesn't increase much, the wheel just gets pushed back and forth faster. After reading the piece about the anchor escapement I realised that what happens is not dependent on friction. The drive force provides both the force that accelerates the wheel and also the force that that slows it down; once escape has occurred the same force that was accelerating the wheel starts decelerating it and then accelerating it in the other direction. If the drive force is increased, both acceleration and deceleration are greater to the same degree, which is what results in the wheel getting pushed back and forth faster.
This is, of course, why all pre-balance spring watches had fusees (or in a few cases stackfreeds) to equalise the force from the mainspring reaching the escapement. I have made a few changes to the paragraph, I'm sure you'll want to improve them :-) .
David.Boettcher 14:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The recoil of the verge escapement isn't really relevant to the issue of why adding the balance spring improved the timekeeping of the balance wheel; it's also not the main reason the escapement is inaccurate. With a recoilless lever escapement, a springless balance wheel would also have lousy isochronism and be a terrible timekeeper. The reason the sprung balance wheel is a better timekeeper is that it is a harmonic oscillator; the restoring force of the spring allows it to store energy from cycle to cycle, and therefore has a resonant frequency. Without a spring, the kinetic energy stored in the wheel is mostly dissipated when the pallet is in contact with the tooth. Regardless what escapement it is driven by, a springless balance wheel has no resonant frequency, so its frequency is determined by drive forces; that is the point of the section. See the discussion of Q in Talk:Balance wheel#Mathematical Model.
My feeling is your detailed digression on the verge escapement is distracting, off-topic and inappropriate in the "History" section. I think the description of the verge should be brief. I was going to add a "Mathematical model" section (see above) to the article where the equation of motion of the balance wheel is derived. That would be an appropriate place to discuss the detailed mechanics of the escapement. Other problems:
  • "If the escapement was driven directly by the mainspring, the watch would have slowed down as the spring unwound and lost force during its running period, which would have made the watch useless as a timekeeper." The escapement is driven directly by the mainspring. Pre balance spring watches were not useless, just fairly inaccurate.
  • "This is why all pre-balance spring watches had fusees (or in a few cases stackfreeds) to equalise the force from the mainspring reaching the escapement." This is misleading; post-balance spring verge watches also had fusees.
--ChetvornoTALK 16:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Chris, I am not trying to score points off you. Can't we work on this in a collaborative way in the spirit of Wikipedia? Your point about the balance spring making the balance into a harmonic oscillator is true, but also irrelevant; this has not been in dispute.
I started out to correct the sentence Early balance wheels rotated freely in each direction until the escapement pushed it back the other way which was clearly wrong. I agree that the whole paragraph is probably not appropriate where it is, but if it *is* there it should at least not be wrong. Your idea to add a "Mathematical model" section to the article where the equation of motion of the balance wheel is derived sounds great. If you want to move stuff around I have no problem with that.
You seem to misunderstand the action of the fusee, it stands *between* the mainspring and the train, so that the balance spring does *not* drive the train, and then the escapement, directly but only through the fusee which equalises the torque being delivered through the train to to the escape wheel. See Fusee (horology). Without the fusee a pre-balance spring watch would run down exponentially (as the paragraph used to imply) and be useless, but with a fusee it was a crude but useable timekeeper. At least, that's what I was trying to say.
I don't think it's misleading to say that all pre-balance spring watches had fusees; after all, it is true. If you want to add that the fusee was also used after the introduction of the balance spring, that's fine.
David.Boettcher 08:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Boettcher (talkcontribs)
I understand the fusee (I wrote the article about it); what threw me was the sentence order. I didn't realize that the first sentence was referring to the fusee in the second. I see what you were saying now. You might consider reversing the order of those two sentences.
I didn't think you were trying to score points, but we may have a difference of philosophy about the article. My preference is to try (as far as possible) to keep complicated explanations out of the History section. I'm not against your additions, I just think some belong in another section. I think we editors of technical articles need to curb our desire to present situations in all their complexity immediately, and give general readers a variety of levels of technical explanation, so they can choose how deeply they want to go into it. After all, the reader may be coming to the History section for, well, history. The details of the pushes and pulls of the escapement are going to put that reader to sleep. There are a lot of complaints that WP articles do not present technical, scientific subjects in an understandable way.
In addition, I feel that going into the mechanical details of the verge gives nontechnical readers the false impression that the inaccuracy of the springless balance wheel is only connected with that escapement. Again, without a balance spring the balance wheel is going to be inaccurate with any escapement; that is the point of the section. That point is getting lost in all the details of the verge. We need to find a simpler way to say that.
When I get time, I'll probably take a stab at rewriting the section. --ChetvornoTALK 00:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't RV constructive changes[edit]

Please take that extra second to merge changes instead of RVing a single character spelling issue. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that hatnote. --ChetvornoTALK 15:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Please Help This Page[edit]

Hi Chris, the page Asymptotic analysis could do with your skills.

David.Boettcher 15:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Boettcher (talkcontribs)

Not my UHF company[edit]

Do you find it strange that internet wasn't listed as an application of UHF?--Wyn.junior (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm glad you added it. What I found strange was that a single company was listed by name as the only provider of this service, with promotional phrases lifted straight from their press release. Particularly since their service is just debuting. I'm sorry if you did this unintentionally, but this is either UNDUE weight or SPAM. Is DTVCast the only firm offering networking by UHF? If not, emphasizing it is promotion. If so, mentioning their name as the first in the field might be OK, but not implying they will be the only one. The mention of the patent implied they had the field sown up. --ChetvornoTALK 17:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

GE Glow Lamp Manual[edit]

Your edit] inserted a reference to a GE manual and linked to an online copy of it. The manual is dated 1965 and has a copyright notice, so its copyright term would be 95 years. Do you have any information that indicates the website has permission to republish? If not, then it would be a WP:COPYLINK violation. Glrx (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know about that WP guideline. The source doesn't appear to have permission so I'll remove the link. --ChetvornoTALK 23:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
OK. Sometimes manufacturers release their copyrights of old materials, but I'm not aware of GE doing that.
On other matters, I believe Circuit dreamer is still under an electronics topic ban (WP:Editing restrictions), so he should not be editing Load line (electronics) or similar topics. Glrx (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I see. I reverted the Load line edits but left the Talk:Pearson–Anson effect since it was interleaved with other edits. Have you reported it to an admin? I didn't see anything on the noticeboard. --ChetvornoTALK 19:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I left a note on CD's talk page and am waiting for his response. I hope it stops there because his intentions are good. Glrx (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
He continued to violate after the recent warning from an administrator, so I reported him. --ChetvornoTALK 07:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. I wish the guy well, but he tests the limits. Glrx (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Band-pass filter[edit]

Can you do me a favour and take a look at this reversion of my edits to the article? I don't understand the person's point (I think he is just failing to read what he wrote) and the discussion is getting a bit bad-tempered. SpinningSpark 19:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure --ChetvornoTALK 19:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Radius of Gyration[edit]

The "radius of oscillation" of a physical pendulum is the length of a simple pendulum with the same period. The "radius of gyration" of any rigid body with mass M and moment of inertia I (for a specified pivot point) is defined as the square root of I/M. Accordingly, the radius of gyration of a pendulum is the geometric mean of the radius of oscillation and the distance from the pivot to the center of mass. The relationship between the radius of oscillation and the radius of gyration has been known for nearly two centuries, if not longer. The radius of gyration is correctly defined in the Wikipedia article bearing that name and in the "Moment of Inertia" article as well. In modern times the radius of oscillation of a physical pendulum is usually called the "equivalent length" of a hypothetical simple pendulum. The older terminology is preferable, in my opinion, and should be preserved for historical authenticity if for no other reason. Thomas Jefferson was familiar with the fact that a thin uniform rigid rod suspended at one end has a radius of oscillation of two-thirds its actual length. This is neither the time or the place to revise traditional nomenclature in a well-established branch of physics. The period of a compound pendulum is already derived in the relevant section of the companion Wikipedia article: Pendulum (mathematics). The parallel axis theorem is not used in that derivation, and the radius of gyration is basically superfluous insofar as the formula for the pendulum period is concerned.

I will soon make another attempt to correct the rather serious conceptual blunder that has prevailed for much too long. Hopefully my post will not be automatically reverted without attempting some kind of meaningful dialogue. 2001:558:6004:B:48A5:65FB:18FE:4B37 (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

2001:558:6004:B:F49E:BFA0:BAC6:2340 (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)2001:558:6004:B:48A5:65FB:18FE:4B37 (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC) 2001:558:6004:B:48A5:65FB:18FE:4B37 (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Electrostatic Induced Charge Diagram[edit]

It's unclear if your excellent electrostatic field and induced charge diagram is an actual simulation or just an "artist's interpretation". If it is the output from a simulation or tool, what is that tool? I ask this because the diagram is well done, clear, and qualitatively correct, and I'd love to make similar figures for my own electrostatic examples! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have made that clear in the captions. It's just an "artist's interpretation". I tried out a few electrostatic-field-line-drawing apps on the web, but none produced very good images or gave much control over the choice of field lines displayed, and most only allowed point charges and did not permit conductive objects to be included. Like you I would like to find (or possibly write) a simulation tool that would draw good images of electric fields. --ChetvornoTALK 05:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Conservation of angular momentum.[edit]

Your reversion of my edit was not correct. The current statement is accurate. Increasing angular speed by reducing moment of inertia is what is illustrated in the figure. There is no need to add an inaccurate principle when a perfectly good explanation is already available. Conservation of angular momentum can only occur when the resultant force on the body is a central force--try looking at an engineering textbook instead of an elementary physics text (e.g., Beer & Johnston). Most biomechanics texts also will agree (Robertson, Caldwell, Hamill et al., 2004). When a person is airborne you could use the conservation principle (unless there is a large air resistance or air speed, e.g., parachuting). If you change the image to a figure skater in the air then you could apply the conservation principle. In the text, I added an example of a diver that is more appropriate. Keep up your good work on the article but try to refrain from oversimplifying a complex motion.

Dger (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The only "force" on the skater is the slight drag of her skates on the ice. That is why spinning skaters stand with their feet together, to reduce the moment arm of the drag force - the same reason that balance wheels and gyroscopes have needle bearing. Conservation of angular momentum is what a skating spin is all about. After she begins the spin, there is no drive force on her, so without conservation of angular momentum she wouldn't be spinning at all. Try to refrain from overcomplicating a simple motion. That's a much more common problem with Wikipedia editors. --ChetvornoTALK 01:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of Perpetual motion lead rewrite[edit]


1) not wrong - physicist

2) long is not a problem for a long article. the lede covered all the key aspects of the topic IMHO

3) you don't source ledes unless they make statements not covered in the body. all of the information i posted in the new lede was covered in the body.

4) the lede I replaced SUCKED. If you're going to "fix" it, maybe try replacing it with something even better, rather than the horrible confusing mash that was there before.

I leave it in your hands. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I sort of agree with the last point, the current introduction is not the best. Would you mind if I put these comments on the Perpetual motion Talk page, where other interested editors could see them? --ChetvornoTALK 20:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


I would go ahead and cut back the excessive Tesla material at Wireless power. If GLPeterson reverts we take it from there. The editor's unresponsiveness (including posting Neil Armstrong quotes instead of replying on his talk page) has brought us to WP:DISRUPT, in fact we are way down the flow chart at WP:DDE (at the level of ANI). It all may go nowhere from here, his MO in the past seems to be to push the Wikipedia process as far as he can before sanction and then vanishing for a while. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. No, GLPeterson is not holding me back. It is just taking me a while to get up to speed on Tesla and his World Wireless ideas. I haven't done much reading yet, maybe you could suggest sources. I was hoping to find a modern RS that would give an engineering assessment of Tesla's ideas. Carlson's book looks good, but I don't have a hard copy and the most relevant sections are blocked on Google Books. --ChetvornoTALK 10:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Just an FYI, I posted an ANI on the editor in question. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
He also has a Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard WP:FTN complaint against him.
I brought a ANI edit-warring complaint against him... --ChetvornoTALK 02:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
...aaaand he got a 48 hour block. --ChetvornoTALK 02:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
[New Person's Comments] Chetvorno and Roches, I would like to point out a third method of wireless power transmission that does not use magnetic or electric field coupling (in the conventional sense) but instead uses the phenomenon of standing waves to create a "coupling" between a surface and a receiver. The recently published article is free to download and can be found here:
At first glance it would appear to be similar to the unipolar capacitive method except that the receiver is not connected to ground with the return path being through stray capacitance with a terminal of the receiver. It is also operated at low voltages instead of the high potential required with capacitive methods. Why this is important to earth transmission is that we have developed a modified version of this that allows the localized surface of the earth to be energized. Though we have not yet published these results, and so do not expect them to be mentioned on Wiki, I would like to take the time to agree with Gary in that the conduction method of power transmission is a real theory that is in-fact extensively used in modern Geophysics - at least how I understand this conduction method which does not involve plasmas. There is older literature supporting the conduction method for communication purposes which can be found in Radio Engineering Principles 1st ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1919, by H. Lauer and H. Brown pages 94 through 101. Many radio books from the same time period will give mention to this "conduction method of radio communication." As started, these techniques are highly used in modern magnetotelluric geophysics to determine soil properties. The reason, however, as to why power is not sent using the same techniques is that geophysics focuses on non-resonant signals with EM theory based on radiative fields and traveling waves (which is important for soil layer identification). When non-radiating, resonant techniques are used, such systems can be adapted to something very similar to our single-contact method - again I realize that this statement of mine is not yet published so you can take it with a grain of salt. What I do ask is that you maintain the "Conduction theory" of power transmission as there are older sources describing the technique which was used extensively during WW1 as a quick means of communication. When reviewing Tesla's works, many of his claims and even the Colorado experiment (having two different grounding locations) very much elude to something similar to the "conduction method of radio". Many thanks, Charles [CW Van NesteTALK] 12:15, 59 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you Gary Peterson? --ChetvornoTALK 20:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Roches comments here should be noted because they are a good boil-down of what Wikipedia includes in an article.
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of things that exist. Something described as "elud(ing) to something similar" is not a thing.
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that demands secondary sources to prove something exists.
  • Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion.
  • An observation of what Tesla's apparatus seems to look like and how it may have functioned would not be usable.
  • A 1919 source may simply be wrong.
  • A WW1 communication technique is not a wireless power transmission technology (the topic of the article).
  • "Single-contact transmission for the quasi-wireless delivery of power over large surfaces" looks promising. It may have nothing to do with Tesla. Tesla was working at short ranges with no scientific verification so anything could have "lit his bulbs". Also Tesla was claiming a system that could energize the planet Earth, this paper shows a system that could energize a "conference table". In other words, when this paper shows up in a few scientific journals or maybe a text book it will be ready for Wikipedia.
Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention that there was no such thing as the "conduction method of radio communication" or "conduction theory" in historical wireless literature. The only person who used that phrase was GLPeterson. --ChetvornoTALK 22:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI this has been filed using your contributed material [2]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Glow discharge image[edit]

RE: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Is close paraphrase of a diagram+graph a copyvio?

Hi. I noticed you changed the origin of your image on commons. That's a good thing to do, but I don't know the answer to the copyright question is. Such graphs may be common/obvious, and the data may not be subject to copyright. Apparently many variations of the periodic table are not copyrightable, so it is possible the glow discharge is not either. I just don't know. Glrx (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the issue up. It bothered me. I copied the diagram from some old Russian book on the web, and persuaded myself it was out of copyright. But I think we can relax. Works published in the US before 1963 revert to PD if the copyright is not renewed when it expires in 28 years. As I mentioned on the page, I searched the US Catalogue of Copyright Entries for the relevant years for a renewal entry and didn't find it. So as I understand it, unless the diagram was attributed and used by permission from someone else, it's PD. --ChetvornoTALK 04:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wireless power[edit]

I really like the cleanup and expansion. The article makes allot more sense now. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but better reserve judgment. I'm not done yet. You might hate it before I'm through :) --ChetvornoTALK 15:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I also appreciate your efforts to make the article on wireless power more understandable for the general audience, and I also like your clean-up. However, many researchers into the subject, most notably in the Japanese JAXA and NASA in the US, were left out. I am sure you'll be able to find them after searching the relevant published papers databases. My issue here is that Dr. and his company, were given an undue amount of attention, almost like an advertisement(!) as if he (and his company) were at the forefront of the wireless energy transfer research. In reality, their results were no better than those of the other researchers. There were no breakthroughs made by Soljacic's experiments, so I believe he should be mentioned, but not so ostentatious, as if the others didn't contribute to the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maslesha (talkcontribs) 22:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Negative resistance[edit]

Following your thorough reworking of negative resistance I feel it ought to be nominated as a GA. What do you think? SpinningSpark 20:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I'd really like to. The article probably needs a cleanup so it meets all the technical requirements. I've never worked on a GA before. You've done a lot of them. Would you be willing to help, or at least consult on it? --ChetvornoTALK 21:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've nominated it. Of course I will help, I would not have suggested a nomination if I wasn't willing to do that. I'll keep the page watchlisted and help respond to any review comments that come up. The requirements are at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. I think we are looking pretty good against that, the article is certainly now well-written and comprehensive. One thing that nominations frequently stumble on is compliance with WP:LEAD. Nobody pays attention to that, but reviewers always pick it up. Without reviewing it in full myself, it looks ok at a glance but it would still be worthwile checking through that every major heading is summarized in the lead and that it does not contain stuff that is not discussed in the article. The technicality of the article and its ease of understanding to a general reader is bound to get some comments, but its probably best to deal with those as they come rather than try to pre-empt them. For those of us familiar with the material it is very hard to judge what outsiders are going to find difficulty with and what they see as obvious. It also depends a great deal on who we get as a reviewer. SpinningSpark 23:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
PS, put Talk:Negative resistance/GA1 on your watchlist, that's where the review will go. But don't write anything on the page yet, if you do that you will fool the GA bot into thinking we are no longer looking for a reviewer. SpinningSpark 00:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, looks good. I'll look at the lead. Do you think ARTICLE SIZE will present a problem? Although the "readable prose" size is a reasonable 40k, the total article size is 531k, far over the 200k recommendation. --ChetvornoTALK 00:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The GA requirement is that it "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". There is no length requirement per se, so it shouldn't be a problem. It may mean we have to wait a long time for a reviewer to take an interest in it though. It's going to be hard work for someone to review it. It would be possible to split if we wanted to, both "negative differential resistance devices" and "negative resistance from feedback" could be spun out into their own articles reasonably cleanly. SpinningSpark 01:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I hope it doesn't come to that. My feeling is that the different categories of negative resistance are so confusing I'd like to see them treated together in a single article. My personal preference would be to split off "Negative resistance oscillators" and "Negative resistance amplifiers". But we can take another look if the issue comes up. --ChetvornoTALK 02:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Whatever gets split out, it would still be necessary to leave a summary behind. SpinningSpark 11:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


Hi - I have recently completed a major revision of this page, and am hoping that someone will review it so that I can judge what standard I have achieved. Could you have a look ? G4oep (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me. I contributed a little bit to the introduction of that article a while back, but I didn't really pay attention to the body so I don't really feel "biased". So I'm not completely "fresh eyes", but if you don't mind that I'd be glad to review it. --ChetvornoTALK 19:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. I have added several more pix since yesterday. I am not certain how to go about the proposed merger with 'Beam Tetrode'. G4oep (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chris...[edit]

We seem to have very similar interests, judged from the fact that we keep bumping into each other in many different contexts. I must say I like your style even though we sometimes don't agree - tho we mostly do. I would like to thank you for looking at the Tetrode page, which I have been editing. Would you like to take a peek at the Tetrode Talk page ? I am using Tetrode as a tool for honing my editing skills and although I am running out of ideas for how to improve it further, it seems that there is still a lot to be done to raise it to a good standard. I am interested in finding out exactly what is required. I have asked for my User Page to be deleted, because it attracted some personal abuse, and I am not happy to reinstate it. But if you would like to know something of my interests just google G4OEP. Btw - I am a retired Senior Lecturer from the University of the West of England (Applied Science Faculty), so I have a strong interest in, and loads of experience of teaching. G4oep (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, I said I would review the article and then I got involved in other editing and didn't do it. I'll look at it right now. Just at first glance, it looks like you have added a lot of valuable historical material and introduced a needed distinction between the different types of two-grid tubes. It is good to have knowledgeable people like you editing the elect. eng. articles, as some of them seem to have been written from a fairly amateur perspective. Give me an hour or two and I will put my review on the Talk page. Cheers. --ChetvornoTALK 00:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments G4oep (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for you very detailed comments on 'Tetrode'. I greatly appreciate the trouble you have taken to make clear what is needed there. Prior to reading that material I had given up, feeling that there was no way that I would ever understand what Wiki users look for in an article. I was beginning to become impatient. Amusing though it might seem now, I really misunderstood "accessibility" (which, to me as a native English speaker, means attainable, approachable, within reach, available, on hand, obtainable, etc"). You have revealed that it is a wikipedia jargon word which, ironically, seems to mean "plain and understandable language", and has nothing to do with my anxiety about references of questionable availability ! This all helps! Your comments have given me plenty to think about. I am just hoping that my enthusiasm for this project will return ! Thanks again - you have really worked at it, and I appreciate that. G4oep (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I noticed smarter minds (than mine) have thought about this already...[edit]

On The Media: Over the last several months, Craig Silverman, author of Poynter’s Regret the Error blog, has been tracking the way rumors and unverified claims spiral through the news. Uncorrected Rumors (transcript)

"When deeply held views are challenged, our instinct is not to say, "well let me understand your point of view on this", it's to double down on those beliefs and to reject what's being told to us. And this is one of the reasons why debunking is so difficult. Another reason is that when you're the debunker, you're almost like a spoilsport. You're kind of ruining a joke, especially when it comes to an entertaining story. A lot of research has found that what you actually have to do, is tell a causal narrative, saying actually here's why this is what happened, and when you do that people can replace that misinformation with the new narrative in their mind."

So, replacing a series of unverified claims with a referenced causal narrative showing what really happened can lead to that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow. So the Topsy killing got retroactively included in the War of the Currents, even though it occurred 10 years after it was over? How did you discover it? Was it Silverman who found the error? That quote is pretty good. Those who correct inflated claims about Tesla do seem to be regarded as "spoilsports". --ChetvornoTALK 18:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Silverman may have covered this, not sure. I noticed the error because of two facts I learned editing Wikipedia: this was 10 years after the war of currents, and Westinghouse and GE (Edison's old company) were sharing patents in 1903. There was no reason in 1903 to prove Westinghouse was using an unsafe system, it was, for all intents and purposes, GE's system. The rewrite of the article was simply stating the whole story in chronological order. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flying saucer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Wu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


This in retrospect looks like a comment on your edit but was not intended that way. I was actually trying to correct the lead "first working radio communication system" and fumbling around for a more descriptive section title. Good catch btw, haven't been watching this article but knew it was a bit of a povfork from Invention of radio. Decided to do "future cleanup" now. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand, I just changed that section title in passing. Your cleanup looks excellent; the assertion that Hughes created a "radio communication system" is clearly hyperbole. Sarkar says Hughes "failed to invent radio". I don't know about the crystal detector claim. To read the previous version, you would think that Hughes was a combination of Edison, Marconi, and William Shockley. I found some old drawings of Hughes' microphone apparatus that I'm uploading. I was going to add them to the article and maybe expand on his microphone research a little.
It's interesting - as you noted in the article, there is this continuous thread of research into "imperfect contacts" by 18th century scientists, that leads from the microphone to the coherer to the crystal detector (this is not to say that Hughes should be credited with the crystal detector). Some of the early coherers were called "microphone" detectors. --ChetvornoTALK 23:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Hybrid fibre-coaxial (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Headend
Oudin coil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Current
State (computer science) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Binary

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Alexanderson alternator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Modulate
Linear circuit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Sound system

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

template error[edit]

Just thought I'd let you know: There seems to be a problem with your template (subst:uw-vandalism1) here (and possibly on other pages too?). Mark in wiki (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Old-time radio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weather report (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Wireless power (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Ferrite, Battery and Rectified
Principle of locality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Field theories
Stub (electronics) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to FM transmitter

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


I am not sure if you were directing to me regarding civility on that talk-page, but I guess you probably were cause this was one of rare occasions I really lost all good-faith towards an editor. You may not know, but that same user has been persistently been wanting to add more Croatia to the article for 2 years now. I simply have no patience anymore for nationalistic POV-pushers anymore. First it all started by him wanting to add how Tesla was born in Croatia (he was born in Military Frontier, Austria), then he wanted to change to Croatian-American scientist, now he is basically making fun of this entire project by claiming there were some local citizenships within Austro-Hungary and that if people of the Hungarian part of A-H empire didn't had Hungarian nationality they probably have Croatian one, but all of this without any source talking anything about actually Tesla having it. So I don't think you see the amount of obsession one has to have to ignore all and everything and to want to say Tesla had Croatian citizenship only based on assumptions and then accusing everyone else of being anti-Croatian for dismissing his proposals. Sorry but it is so ridiculous, I dare to sa we are facing a Croatian nationalist teenager who is making fun and making everyone loose time here. Honestly, I was wishing that he reported me for saying "fuck" so I could provide him a boomerang so we could end this madness at Tesla article once and for all. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, he seems to be a WP:POVPUSHer and disruptive editor. The way to deal with him is not give him what he wants; an argument, a dialog. He can't do anything permanent to the article without consensus. If he repeatedly changes the article he can be charged with edit warring. For disruptive editing short of that, or messing with the Talk page, there is a flowchart in WP:Disruptive editing; an ANI complaint can be brought against him. But it's important not to get sucked into disruptive behavior yourself, it's not worth getting charged yourself. Detach. I'm sure he'll argue with you on the Talk page as long as you want to continue. --ChetvornoTALK 19:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Gain edit[edit]

Chris, at Gain I changed your edit of Sep. 28, 2012 as per here. Let me know if you disagree with any of the changes. "Mean radiation intensity from an antenna" and "radiation intensity from an isotropic antenna" are synonymous so your "isotropic" is not the issue, only "lossless" = 100% efficient which you omitted. Re the change from receiving to transmitting, the definitions are customarily given for the latter. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Antenna (radio), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Logarithmic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I, Maslesha, as a Wiki member and contributor, hereby wish to thank You, and then thank You again, and thank You once more, for your diligence and effort in making the Wikipedia a better, less biased, and more reliable resource than any other resource people around the world can use. It is equally a surprise and a true honor to find such a dedicated and unbiased author, from which the Wikipedia can only expect to flourish. Live long and prosper! :) Maslesha (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)