User talk:Constant314

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

Welcome...

Hello, Constant314, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.  Again, welcome! SpinningSpark 16:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know I had a user page until today. Thanks for the greeting and I apologize for it taking so long.

Adding References to Articles[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have added references to a few articles that had no references. It has been a few months, but the articles ares still flagged as having no references. How do I get that changed?70.123.153.103 (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are sure that a warning notice is redundant, you can remove it yourself by editing the article in the normal way. Right at the top you will find something like "{{Unreferenced|date=somedate}}" or perhaps "{{Multiple issues| ... Unreferenced=somedate ... }}". Be sure to fill in the edit summary clearly, something like "Removing the unreferenced tag because there are now 8 references", so that other editors know what you are doing. Do not mark the edit as "minor" -- John of Reading (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Constant314 (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Toroidal inductors and transformers[edit]

I added to Talk:Toroidal inductors and transformers. Your pix would be good in Rogowski coil. Thanks for your efforts. Glrx (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know your pix are public domain. I pointing you to an interesting topic and offering you the edits. Glrx (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, but I don't know anything about Rogowski coils.

I read some of your page, most of it is books and thought these internet links might be useful, this one has some pictures.[1]. This one has some more diagrams.[2] The rest are a bit complicated to explain.[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8]. This is a good one,[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15]. I`m not sure if you got this one already.[16]. That`s all I can find at the minute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.33.76 (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Stubs
Relief well
Common drain
Houston Gay Pride Parade
Health physics
Macondo
Laplacian vector field
Stripline
Forward echo
Single-sideband suppressed-carrier transmission
Retarded potential
Radiobiology
Unbalanced line
High impedance
Mechanical wave
Velocity potential
Interface conditions for electromagnetic fields
Output impedance
Lumped element model
Four-gradient
Cleanup
Transmission coefficient
Focused Impedance Measurement
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency
Merge
DC bias
Functional derivative
Free space
Add Sources
Adder (electronics)
Solid-fuel rocket
Dipole antenna
Wikify
Inverse-square law
Test probe
Energy efficient transformer
Expand
Inductor
Attenuator (electronics)
RL circuit

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) 20:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Requesting help on misspelled file names[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I recently uploaded numerous files to wikimedia commons and then noticed that I consistantly misspelled one of the words in the names.

Do I have to reload each file again with the correct spelling and then nominate the old files for deletion?

Or is there an easy way to correct the spelling?

And if not, maybe there is an easy way to make a copy of each file with a new name and thhen nominnate the old files for deletion.Constant314 (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixing now for you using rename template. -- DQ (t) Merry Chrismasand a Happy New Year! 19:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done now awaiting commons administrator. -- DQ (t) Merry Chrismasand a Happy New Year! 19:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank-you very much. How long does it usually take for the renaming process to complete?Constant314 (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist etc[edit]

Re your question, I use a the watchlist (click "my watchlist" top right corner of screen) and have my preferences set to add any page I edit. See Help:watching pages for more information. You can also set up an RSS feed for selected pages - see Wikipedia:Syndication.

Redlinks arise when a wikilink is made to a page that does not exist. If you copied an existing table with links to the units and then changed the units, that would explain the redlinks. You named units that do not have a page.

Hope that helps. SpinningSpark 14:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that helps, thank you.Constant314 (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not[edit]

Just been looking over your recent work in attenuator (electronics). This is good stuff, but I have a couple of comments. Firstly, most of the component calculation information is probably better off in the individual articles for specific attenuator circuits. Indeed, there seems to be some duplication. You could put a summary in the attenuator article and use the {{main}} template to link to the details. Secondly, I would like to draw your attention to the WP:NOTTEXTBOOK policy. Wikipedia is not meant to be a textbook teaching the subject and lengthy formula derivations are getting close to being in breach of this. You might want to consider whether some of your material is more suitable for the sister project Wikibooks. Wikibooks can be linked into a Wikipedia article with the {{Wikibooks}} template. SpinningSpark 12:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

thank you for your comments. I will consider them carefully, but maybe not until tomorrow. Merry Christmas and thanks for the help and advice in the past.Constant314 (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Happy holidays. I have removed the examples and derivations. The article should be much less like a text book now. As for where to put the information, I have pondered this and come up with a dilemma. There is a lot of overlap between T-pad and pi-pad. It is not a matter of effort; it is just a question of how to organize the information. Should it be in two or three places or should it be in one place with links to it in other articles? The problem with having it in two articles is that improvements, error correction, additions may be made in one article and not the other. So, I'd rather just put it in one place and attenuator looked like a good place since it treats T-pads and pi-pads equally. I got advice on this from Dicklyon who suggested " Don't make a new article that overlaps the other two; it's better to merge all into one of the existing ones, move it to Impedance matching pad or something like that, then convert the others to redirects. " I thought attenuator would be a good candidate for something like Impedance matching pad . As always I appreciate your comments.Constant314 (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Dicklyons solution is workable, but personally, I like to see the details of specific circuits in their own articles. The general article is less hard going for the reader that way. Another possible approach is to write the common material in the template namespace and then transclude it into both articles. This would solve your problem of maintainability since any change will automatically be reflected in both articles. If you go down this path, make sure the first line of the template is a heading as this will make for easy editing of the section. SpinningSpark 23:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
That sounds good. Can you point me to an example?Constant314 (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
If you take a look at Talk:Aboriginal Memorial you will see that there is a GA review going on. The review can be seen on the talk page, but is actually on a different page, Talk:Aboriginal Memorial/GA1. If you look at the talk page in edit mode you will see that the review page is transcluded on to it by writing the page between double curly braces like so {{Talk:Aboriginal Memorial/GA1}}. Note that the review can be edited as if it were a section of the talk page because it begins with a heading. In the article space, pages which are to be transcluded in are placed in the "template" namespace. In those cases the namespace "template" can be omitted as "template will be assumed if nothing is specified, see for instance Heartbreak Hotel which has a list of {{Elvis Presley singles}} at the bottom of the article which also appears in many other articles. SpinningSpark 23:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I understand that. Is the page to be transcluded just an ordinary page? Constant314 (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, any page can be transcluded on to any other page, but it is the convention to put the page to be transcluded in the template namespace rather than the main namespace because the latter is reserved only for self-contained articles, not fragments. SpinningSpark 16:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

image on user page[edit]

I assume you did not want this to happen. Feel free to revert if I am wrong. SpinningSpark 20:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

thanksConstant314 (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Transit[edit]

I've been doing some research on Transit tracking stations, and I was wondering if you knew anything about the other installations. I assume that 019 is atypical, since it is in Antarctica, but have you seen what any of the others look like? I assume that they all have similar antenna installations and would be readily recognizable. If you think you might be able to help me with some information on Station 002, can you leave me a message on my talk page? Thanks. ℱorƬheℒoveofℬacon 04:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC) You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Fortheloveofbacon's talk page. You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Fortheloveofbacon's talk page.

File:Magnetic Vector Potential Circular Toroid (now in svg format)[edit]

png form.

I was recently editing Talk:Magnetic potential , and ran into your original and excellent image! If its ok - I redrew it in SVG form, I like your originality so kept all the colours and everything (except maybe some shading for the toroidal core, as I couldn't quite get it to work, maybe I can edit this with inkscape later, sorry)...

It has replaced the jpeg version in the article, and also noted on the talk page of that article. Thanks, =) F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 20:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

thanksConstant314 (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
One point - I didn't just edit the talk page of magnetic potential, but the article also (not sure why you changed the link back but it doesn't really matter...).
You have a user page of ~ 78kB. To significantly reduce the byte count and allow the page to load up quicker, for all the fab images you created/uploaded, you could create subpages for each section of them, say
User:Constant314/Two Ports images containing the section User:Constant314#Two Ports images,
User:Constant314/Torroidal Inductor/Transfotmer and Magnetic Vector Potential images containing the section User:Constant314#Torroidal Inductor/Transfotmer and Magnetic Vector Potential images,
User:Constant314/Toroidal Transformer Presentation images containing the section User:Constant314#Toroidal Transformer Presentation images,
etc (to name a few), and then under the sections on your user page, you just insert the subpages like a template (subpage name in curly brackets), say
{{User:Constant314/Two Ports images}},
{{User:Constant314/Torroidal Inductor/Transfotmer and Magnetic Vector Potential images}},
{{User:Constant314/Toroidal Transformer Presentation images}}, etc...
(though correct the spelling errors first to prevent page-moving things after). It may also help reduce vandalism, since editors coming to your main page will not be able to edit the contents of the subpages because they are elsewhere. Thanks again for the good work. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 13:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I did not do anything. Perhaps someone else changed it back? It turns out that I cannot read and display *.svg files so I guess I am glad it changed back.Constant314 (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
It's evident from this edit that you did. Again - its not important, lets forget it please. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 21:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
It is important because I have no idea how it happened.Constant314 (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


Welcome to WikiProject Electrical engineering[edit]

Welcome!
Power plant.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

SchreyP (messages) 08:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Minor loop feedback, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phase (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) 11:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Private communication[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Is there a way to communicate privately with an editor.Constant314 (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Many users have email enabled. Check in the menu (in Vector skin it's on the left) and look for the Toolbox. If the user you wish to contact has email enabled, there will be a link "E-mail this user" in that menu. -- Dianna (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Constant314 (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comments to Kevin aylward[edit]

I noticed that you have made a very long reply to Kevin aylward at Talk:Transformer. I don't know if you were aware, but I blocked him earlier today for edit warring so he won't be replying to you any time soon unless he chooses to repent. I have taken issue with you on one of your comments, but I am avoiding expressing an opinion in the debate in general as this would compromise my position acting as an administrator as I would no longer be uninvolved in the dispute. SpinningSpark 18:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no arguement with your comment; I'm still learning the rules. I understand that if something were absolutely wrong that it should be removed, even if a majority of the editors believed it correct. But please elaborate, if something were absolutely wrong, yet a majority of the editors believed it to be true, who would decide?Constant314 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
In ideal cases, with editors that are behaving collaboratively, and not editing from some pre-conceived POV, there is no reason that content disputes should not be settled by examining sources. For protracted cases amongst good faith editors there are a number of dispute resolution processes available. In non-ideal cases where dispute resolution has failed and there is an issue with editor behaviour that cannot be dealt with by administrator action, it might ultimately end up at ArbCom although you don't want to go there unless you actually like interminable psuedo-legal proceedings. There is no ultimate authority for settling content disputes, the whole thing basically relies on maintaining a collegial atmosphere (and removing those editors who won't play by those rules). SpinningSpark 19:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I will respond to your comments on the talk page of that article. I hope to paraphrase my understanding of your explanation.Constant314 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thermistor - HP200A[edit]

<moved to Talk: HP200A>Constant314 (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Numbering equations[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have a question about numbering equations. This is normally done in text books so that you can easily refer to a particular equation, yet it does not seem to be the style for Wikipedia pages to have equations numbered. So my questions are: 1. Is numbering of equations undesirable? 2. Is there a preferred way to number equations? 3. Is there an article that uses numbered equations that illustrates the practice? Thanks in advance to anyone who answers my questions.Constant314 (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

An interesting question, which I thought would be easy to answer. First, I looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics; drawing blank there, I went to WP:WikiProject Mathematics and picked a few featured articles and good articles from the list on their page, to try to find examples of equation numbering. No luck. I will leave the "helpme" in case some one else can answer; also, I will post a note on the WikiProject's talk page. JohnCD (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know of an article that uses numbered equations, but the templates {{EquationNote}} and {{EquationRef}} can be used for that purpose. You may want to ask at WT:WikiProject Mathematics on whether equations should be numbered - personally I'd try to avoid numbered equations if at all possible. Huon (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
There's also {{NumBlk}} which lets you layout a line containing a formula and number. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
To see this all in action, take a look at Poisson summation formula.--LutzL (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Equation numbering is described in Help:Formula#Equation numbering. --Mark viking (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Note that—with the new MathJax—anyhting appearing outside the math tags will destroy the new formula centering feature. That means that (unless the numbering is done in the math itself) numbered equations will remain left justified with the number on the far right, whereas unnumbered equations will get centered. See indeed Poisson summation formula. Ugly. - DVdm (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Indentation, numbering or equation bullets: In many cases, an equation is merely indented by a lead colon ":" (or two "::"), while numbered equations would imply an expectation of mentioning the equation numbers in other text. Unfortunately, the math-tag text is often heavy, dark, bolded text and looks "unprofesssional" for extra numbering/wording, such as "where x is the angle of incidence" or similar. For numbering, I would recommend simply placing an indented plain-text number ":1.&nbsp;" in front of the math-tag for equations which will be mentioned in the text. Lists of equations should generally use asterisk bullets (":*") to allow some to wrap as two math-tags on two lines. However, beware how the math pages are the most difficult to update, often reverted with bickering or complaints by other editors, and hence, the math pages are some of the most backward, cryptic, or awkward of all WP articles, with excessive technical structure and too little explanation of the related concepts for general readers. Those pages also tend to "dog-pile" tangent topics as crammed into over-large pages with excessive obtuse abstract wording, rather than move the related tangent topics into smaller concise subpages as often done with mainstream topics. If you are a teacher or have a degree in mathematics, as I do, then I suggest working on math pages at Simple English Wikipedia, to clarify concepts for general users, and then if someone complains why the WP math pages are so convoluted, unkempt or confusing, then direct them to read about a clarified topic at Simple WP instead. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks for all the answers. If anyone has more comments please continue to post them.Constant314 (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Protocol for Replacing an Image[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

A long time ago I created the drawing file Magnetic Vector Potential Circular Toroid.jpg. This was before I knew that other formats were preferred. Another editor redrew the file an posted it as an svg file and changed some of the usages to the svg file. However, he was unable to render certain details so I recreated the image as a png file. I am unable to generate svg files. I have changed all the uses of the jpg and svg files over to the png file. I have requested deletion of my own jpg file so that it won't get accidently used again. I would also like to insure that the svg file does not get used again because it is missing certain details and I cannot maintain it or improve it. So, my question is: is it legitimate to ask for the deletion of another person's file if that file has been superseded?Constant314 (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This is more of a Commons question than one about Wikipedia, and you have already nominated the image for deletion over at the Commons. Deleting outdated versions of images seems legitimate to me, but I'm no expert on preferred file types. Have you tried asking F=q(E+v^B), the creator of the .svg, to improve his version? Huon (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Yes I did leave a request on F=q(E+v^B) commons page but since then I found that his Wikipedia page redirects to User talk:Z = z² + c which has a huge banner at the top that says he/she has terminated his/her activities and permission is granted to revert any and everything he/she every contributed. So I went ahead with the deletion request.Constant314 (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Energy sucking antennas[edit]

Nope, wasn't me. My professional life was spent mostly in the "welding industry", specifically designing control systems and power supplies for plasma-cutting torches, the differences being, for plasma cutting, dangerously-high open circuit voltages (300-400 volts), higher powers (up to 100's of KW), and the use of high-voltage, high-freq (e.g. 3 MHz), high-powered spark-gap oscillators to emit pulses that arc-and-spark (start) the torches -- the resulting EMI is beyond belief, so I have a lot of experience "hardening" electronics against EMI. That's about as close to "energy sucking antennas" as I've come. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the reply.Constant314 (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Magnetic vector potential[edit]

I'm not familiar with this notion, but perhaps the following reference will help. (I see what you mean about the cost of these books! But we're in luck . . ..) Many years ago I bought a book called "The J & P Transformer Book" by Martin Heathcote, first published in 1925 and now in its 13th or so edition. This book belonged to and stayed with the company where I worked, but marvel of marvels it's gone into the public domain, all 950+ pages of it, and I was able to download all of the 12th edition (if you google "J & P Transformer Book" you'll find this as the second result):

ftp://ftp2.epman.org/epman/epman/portal/yde/The_J_P_Transformer_Book_12E.pdf

In the first chapter you'll see quite-complicated, thorough phasor diagrams (these have flux and voltage and currents etc all on the same diagram). The pdf version is a bit marred by poor resolution of these drawings (most seem adequate), but check out Appendix 7 "The use of finite element analysis in the calculation of leakage flux and dielectric stress distributions" where you'll find some really fancy math and physics . . . div and curl and all that good stuff. Ditto for some of the other Appendices.

Is this the sort of thing you're after? I hope this helps . . . Bill Wvbailey (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Electric potential[edit]

The clause you removed is adequately covered at the top, where it is explained that the point charge must be divided out. It's perfectly reasonable to remove it from the general statement in the introduction, so I left it as you edited it. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Frequency divider[edit]

I am in the process of splitting the overpopulated Category:Wikipedia requested diagram images by changing diagram requests to more specific tags. I was not the original requester of a diagram on that page; just doing some gnome-type organization. I would ask the original requester, or if you are confident no additional diagrams are needed, remove the tag. Cheers! Swpbtalk 15:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Meacham by Jim Williams on Wien Osc page[edit]

An oscillator config is in the filter part an not in the faithful copy of a thermoionic work with necessarily a lamp as a regulator

Let's see...


A ground referred negating 2 OP Amp based DC coupled with an LDR regulating element is still a Wien Osc even if it shares only the reactive network with Hewlett's thesis became HP 200

A Wien even if it has no tubes even if it has no plate impedance adapting transformer even if it has no lamp as a PTC thermistor but a more precise and a less distorting LDR with a zener-precise voltage output

And Williams' is a true Meacham because the quarz is a filter with a series resitance that needs to be compensated to reach Barkhausen point with a positive variable feedback


If You will undo Yr deletion You will have a better figure:

An encclopedia is not based on showing muscle force like some moderators in Italian Wiki,but on sharing culture

-


Thank You

Gianni — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.250.3 (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


Good day Gianni,

Thanks for taking time to contact me. I am always pleased to discuss and collaborate.

You are of course correct that a Wein bridge oscillator is a Wein bridge oscillator even if it is implemented with solid state amplifiers instead of tubes and an LDR instead of a lamp. It is a Wein bridge oscillator because it has a Wein bridge.

On the other hand, we would not call it Hewlett’s Oscillator because Hewlett used tubes and a lamp. When I look at the schematic in the LT application note, I find that there are too many differences from Meacham’s design to call it Meacham’s oscillator. About the only thing in common with Meacham’s circuit is that there is a resonator in a bridge. In particular, Meacham’s resonator was in the negative feedback branch of the oscillator and functioned so to minimize negative feedback at the oscillation frequency where the LT oscillator has the resonator in the positive feedback branch and it maximizes positive feedback at the oscillation frequency. Meacham’s gain control was in the positive feedback branch and operated to decrease positive feedback when the amplitude increases. The LT circuit has the gain control in the negative feedback loop and operates to increase negative feedback when the amplitude decreases. Finally Meacham used tuned transformers. These have circuit implications that are not present in the LT oscillator. For all these reasons, I find the fine circuit described in the LT document to be so far removed from Meacham’s design that it provides no useful insight the Meacham’s circuit. If the article was about bridged based oscillators then it might be a good fit. But this article is about Wein bridge oscillators and their history. Meacham’s original circuit is of interest because it predated and contributed to Hewlett’s design for a Wein bridge oscillator.

You may have noticed that Glrx has been working extensively on this article. If he agrees that the link is appropriate then I will not oppose it. Constant314 (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Capacitive coupling[edit]

As a specialist of non-radiative near-fields (especially capacitive ones), I planned to add here the general frame for capacitive coupling Qi=CijVj With Cij the capacitive matrix with self-capacitances (diagonal terms) and mutual capacitances (Off-diagonal terms), derived a century ago and available on most books dealing with electrostatics. This work could lead to the introduction in the electric network frame of the capacitive coupling in the same footing as inductive coupling is (see https://www.dropbox.com/sh/765ig8ksoqo0934/AAD54qcUgl6BvV3ralooQfvaa?dl=0 ). The well known coupling coefficient might be introduced in the same way, again many text book ref available and already present in Coupling_coefficient_of_resonators(albeit not in the simplest form ). However the basic schematic (two capacitors linked by a curved arrow to figure the coupling), although well known, is not present in most books (to my knowledge) but PI-models are (as well as T-models for inductive coupling). According to most specialists, this basic representation is a remarkably clear way to introduce both coupling in their general forms. I think they deserved to be presented as open source content in the capacitive coupling page, inductive coupling page as well as in the wireless power page. I will not make the same mistake twice (introducing inappropriately a link related to my own work in a Wiki page), moreover, in this specific case, I do not pretend to be the initiator or the representation (that I started to use in 2004). So what do you think ?.Henri BONDAR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Good day Henri. Thanks for contacting me. I see your comments and I will respond, but it may take a little while. I presume that you have added my talk page to your watch list.Constant314 (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Good day again. There are several things to discuss. Let’s start with the conflict of interest. I’m not suggesting you have done anything unethical. But you do have a patent and have at least a nominal economic interest in promoting related topics. That does not lock you out totally, but the preferred way to proceed is to is to identify your WP:COI on the talk page of the article(s) and then make suggestions on the talk page about things to change or include. That way, it is up to some other editor, with no COI, to decide if it is significant. It is an inefficient and probably frustrating way to proceed.
You also used your own published work as a reference in the Pointing vector article. This is not entirely prohibited, but the reference is more carefully scrutinized. It can stay, if it appears in a reliable secondary source such as an academic journal with a formal peer review process. An example, would be the Proceedings of the IEEE. The articles are mostly original work but they are vetted though a formal editorial process that includes peer review. I have done this myself, but first I discussed it with an Admin who looked into the particular publication and concluded that it met the requirements of a reliable secondary source. But, even if you do that, you still need to address the COI issues.
Given that you have both WP:COI and WP:OR (own or original research) issues, I would encourage you to stick to your draft article rather than sprinkling the new unappreciated information over several existing articles. Once you get your draft in good shape (there is no hurry), there is a mechanism to request comments from the relevant physics and engineering groups.
Regarding quasi-static, in 99.9+% of the time it means that you can neglect the time it takes for electromagnetic effect to propagate. The general prescription is that the size of the apparatus is small compared to the wavelength in question. I am not saying that quasi-electrostatic and quasi-magnetostatic should not be discussed, but those topics should not be in the first sentence or even in the first paragraph. No matter how useful and insightful they may be, their significance is far below that of the ordinary quasi-static definition. As your own reference says, these subject are not well covered in text books today. That is evidence that the topics are not significant in the Wikipedia sense. Have a look at WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I have been frustrated myself that my own brilliant insight cannot be included in some articles because a lack of reliable sources.
And finally, on your comments about discussion of mutual and self-capacitances. I do not see anything controversial. In my mind, I see a bunch of spheres floating in space. Each sphere has a coupling or mutual capacitance to each of the other spheres and has its own self capacitance to “ground”. Each sphere would have an absolute charge injected on it and it would have “voltage” with respect to “ground” that would satisfy the equation Q=CV where Q and V are vectors and C is a matrix. I am surprised that it is not already covered on Wikipedia, but it is an obvious extension of the Two-port network article.
Some years ago, a commentator in one of the electronics magazines (probably Electronic Design) made a statement about the capacitance between the Earth and the moon. What he actually computed was the Earth’s self-capacitance in series with the moon’s self-capacitance. He got a letter form “some guys in France” that told him the capacitance was much smaller. They were computing the mutual or coupling capacitance. It was never resolved. Anyway, it does show a misunderstanding of the topic. I would say go ahead on that topic, except that you have COI on the topic. I know that it is frustrating; your deep knowledge about the topic allowed you to receive a patent related to the topic and thus have an economic interest in publicizing the topic. It disqualifies a lot of knowledgeable people from contributing to Wikipedia in their area of competence. But that is the choice Wikipedia has made. It prefers editors with less knowledge but with reliable sources over experts without reliable sources.
So there is a lot for you to consider. I again suggest that you reign in your zeal for sharing the unappreciated information and put your effort into your draft document. Wikipedia is much more accepting of a new article on a subject instead of additions to old stable articles which suggest the article largely or completely misses the point, is wrong, archaic, is inconsistent with new revelations or modern developments, etc. Constant314 (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your precious comments. Most contributors use a pseudo and it can help to some extent I guess. What was really frustrating was to see my contributions in Wireless Power domain presented in an awkward manner with inappropriate, sources, terms and interpretation. But the situation is much more balanced now (except for some general considerations I am now discussing in talk pages before modifications, as you suggest). Besides, my contributions are limited to a few topics (mainly quasi-electrostatics and ElectroHydroDynamics). The main aspect of my work is to restore a kind of balance between capacitive coupling and inductive coupling that are dual in the EM frame, and to fight again dogmatism such as the dominant wavelike interpretation of Maxwell equations (such as evanescent waves, magic effect of resonance.....) so I am more a teacher than an engineer. I have also a didactic website, and a youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCmZ6qsHrUmPlHv50sg5wSQ
I have planned to propose Wikipedia pages for new subjects such as Galilean electromagnetism you already know or more pragmatically the Coupling index kQ introduced a century ago to describe coupled circuits in the electrical network frame and that can help to explains the confusion made between coupling and resonant coupling. Henri BONDAR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
For the sharp versus consensus aspect, I think this idea can be explained in the recent Wikipedia poll. Static, consensual, insipid and finally dogmatic or dynamic, up to date and sometimes questionable, pick your choice ! Henri BONDAR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I realize that I didn't answer to all your comments. For publishing: journals such as IEEE are saturated with all kinds of inputs with a poor peer reviewed process. So we (I have worked in different teams) have published only a few articles in Journal of Applied Physics, Journal of Electrostatics, and so on, except perhaps our scientific colleagues in Japan that are fighting for applications. I am really worried on the evolution of communication in the scientific world were intelligent knowledge is harder and harder to extract from an exponential noise. So I expect that collaborative works such as Wikipedia can help to sort the knowledge and to organize data in circles according to their use and importance. For capacitive concerns: Yes they are many confusion concerning self and mutual capacitance as well as a general ignorance on the possible use of electrostatic induction (I personally prefer to call it influence to avoid confusion)for WPT transfer. The capacitive matrix is the best way to introduce these topics (see for instance our article here https://www.dropbox.com/sh/765ig8ksoqo0934/AAD54qcUgl6BvV3ralooQfvaa?dl=0), but it is not always used (see my comments on Coupling coefficient of resonators). Thank again for your comments.--Henri BONDAR (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Good day Henri. Its a busy time for me. I will respond later.Constant314 (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Constant, I truly loved your quotes to Einstein and Feynmann writings concerning on one side "ether" (or immaterial "substratum" as he later named it), and on the other side the fields seen as "an action at a distance". I am searching for a document I read a few years ago and where a coherent EM formalism was introduced without any reference to fields and propagation but only delayed forces at a distance. Maybe you know where I can find it ? Regards --Henri BONDAR (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what you are looking for. Feynman is fairly clear that the E, H, D, ad B fields are computed from the retarded potentials and the retarded potentials are computed from delayed effects of the current and charge densities. Propagation is built into the retarded potentials.Constant314 (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Just looking for a web link to a formalism not even based on retarded potentials but on retarded forces. I have seen such an integral (and unpractical) representation of EM but I cannot remember where. It is only to show, in a didactic document not directly related to wikipedia, that the current formalism that introduces the abstract concepts of fields is not the only one possible. As it is aimed for a wide public, I do not wish to introduce the potentials if possible. Maybe something like Jefimenko's equations combined to Lorentz force to remove the fields and obtain a single force at a distance, will do (still too complex for a general public I guess). Anyway don't worry with that. --Henri BONDAR (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
It would seem that all you would have to do is plug Jefimenko's expressions for E and B into the equation for electromagnetic force and you would have an expression for force without fields.Constant314 (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes this seems OK but it is not a simple link to such a formalism. Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me and such a link doesn't exist. Thanks for your help. --Henri BONDAR (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Galilean invariance[edit]

Hi Constant314!

I'm urging you to reconsider your deletion of the example of the Earth revolving around the Sun at Galilean invariance.

I believe that your action neglects to take into consideration that the page is dual. It serves to explain both Galilean relativity and Galilean invariance because Wikipedia is lacking the necessary separate articles. Yet invariance is fundamentally (but not practically) incoherent without an understanding of Galilean relativity.

Consider that Galilean relativity, to be defined, implies that a sleeping man is both not moving in his bed and at the same time moving around the Earth and moving around the Sun at different velocities. If these cases are facts, then Galilean relativity is necessarily correct.

Galilean invariance is a related inner Galilean/Newtonian principle of physics. It says that the laws of physics are invariant in each of those three and all other Galilean/Newtonian inertial frames.

In lieu of rewriting the articles, this example needs to stay until it is replaced by something better! ~~ BlueMist (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I would have no problem with a more elaborate example further down in the article. Keep the lede simple. The observer inside the ship moving with a constant velocity who is unaware of his motion gets the same results as an observer on dry land. This would seem to be adequate for Galilean relativity and Galilean invariance. We both know the ship is on the Earth, which is spinning and the Earth is going around the sun and the sun around the galaxy and the galaxy around the local cluster etc. We know that there are no non-accelerated frames available yet there are situations where it is close enough. For the casual reader, we simply invoke the man on dry land and the one inside the ship and we say the ship is moving with a constant velocity; it is easy to imagine. Add an observer on the deck of the ship who is aware of his motion relative to dry land if you like. Motion around the sun invokes the image of circular motion; it takes some justification to say, yes, it is in circular motion, but it is approximately linear motion. It is fine further down, but it is too complicated for the lede.Constant314 (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, I've tried. Since you appear to be an engineer, I could give you a simple schematic or mathematical proof in terms of classical mechanics. That would help you to understand the difference between the two ideas, but what good would that do for Wikipedia? ~~ BlueMist (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Skin effect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Impedance (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) 09:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Magnetic current, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Antenna and Impedance (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) 10:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Lenz[edit]

OK, the first one was too ad-like. I was trying to get close to the primary source, the company that made the thing. I wanted to show that Lenz' law is useful for something other than physics exam problems, for things that ordinary people might find in their house, and see working. Even if you don't like the video, the patent can't be so bad. But I suspect that many will find the patent as boring as their physics books. Gah4 (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Checkout WP:LINK. The idea of links is that they should be used very sparingly and only for something that cannot be added to the article. If there was something revealing about Lenz law in the patent, then that information should be added to the article and then the patent would appear as an inline citation, which would also be a link in this case. But, this patent is just for a configuration of an electric motor that has nothing special or unique. There is nothing in the patent that reveals anything about Lenz law that isn't already in the article.
Cheers Constant314 (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, it is supposed to have something unique to get the patent. At some point, Lenz' law applied to all electromagnetic motors, but this one is just a little more interesting in the way it works, and the way Lenz' law applies. It would take me a little while to figure out how to add it to the article, but that could be done. Gah4 (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, a patent must have something novel, but the mere existence of a patent is not sufficient in itself to be notable. The patent office is overworked and frequently issues patents that are not actually novel. They let the courts work it out. Also, a lot of patents are just add-ons to other patents. For example, I might get a patent for idea X, a new kind of motor. Someone else may then get a patent for the idea of using my motor as a water pump in a fire truck. That is the way I see this patent. It is a brushless DC motor used for the novel application of spinning a toy top. I do not see any new or unique insight into Lenz law.
But if you want to proceed, I suggest that you start a new topic on the talk page and say what you think is worthy of inclusion in the article and get other editor’s opinions. You may even convince me. :)
Cheers Constant314 (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)