# User talk:Jbergquist

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

## George Clarke Chandler, Pat Burns, etc.

Hi...please don't apply Category:People from Canada in broadcasting to individual articles; they should be filed only in the appropriate subcategory (Category:Canadian television personalities, Category:Canadian radio personalities, etc.) The "people in broadcasting" category is meant only as a parent for the subcategories; it's not supposed to contain any individual articles. Thanks. Bearcat 06:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The categories you mentioned are an improvement. --Jbergquist 09:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

## Victoria (crater) anaglyphs

I have removed the Victoria Crater anaglyphs from Opportunity rover because they could be made into one image using a tool similar to AutoStitch. Feel free to replace it with a stitched version. If you do replace the image, please tag the old images with {{db-g7}} so that they may be deleted. And by the way, the article for Victoria is here. (I have blanked the OrphanBot notice because you addressed the concerns raised). Happy editing! MER-C 06:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, it's a good opportunity (no pun intended) to spam the Martian geography WikiProject. Happy editing! MER-C 06:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the way to do it would be to stitch the all the L7s and all the R1s (so that you have two images), then make an anaglyph of the two images. Don't blame me if it goes wrong, because I'm too busy tagging stuff for deletion. MER-C 09:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
What is probably needed is an image editor for stitching anaglyphs which are not regular B&W or color images. There is more involved than just projecting pixels onto a sphere to create a panorama. The value of an anaglyph is its 3D content since there are two points of view, one for each eye. An additional complication is that the images have to be adjusted for the rotation of the head with apparent viewing angle. The B&W images and variations in lighting probably also contributed to making it difficult to achieve a match. As for me, I was just submitting a story. It is today's news. My contribution was the creation of the anaglyph and adjusting the plane of focus for the viewer. JPL's anaglyphs merge at infinity which makes viewing close-up difficult. Wiki has the right to enforce an editorial policy and content covers such matters as image size and the allocation of resources. But I think that editorial license would include the creation of anaglyphs from the raw images and making the adjustments which I did. The same thing could be done with an anaglyph that JPL produced to make it easier for a person to view and this was the motivating factor in the creation of the program that I used. The real story is what JPL and the scientific community is doing and I would prefer not to detract from that. So I choose to defer to Wiki on the removal. --Jbergquist 15:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed the typo that I made on the image file names. Haste makes waste. I'll tag the anaglyphs for deletion. The panorama of Victoria (crater) from Wikimedia Commons was posted prior to the anaglyphs. --Jbergquist 20:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The images which were removed but with corrected names. Click on an anaglyph to enlarge it. Standard red-blue glasses are needed to view them as intended.

The total number of pixels in all seven anaglyphs is just slightly larger than that in the largest versions of the NASA/JPL panoramic anaglyphs mentioned on the image pages. --Jbergquist 01:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess some of these pictures could be useful for illustrating specific features of Victoria, such as Cape Verde and the other cape (name doesn't come to me). But for a general view of Victoria, something like the anaglyphs here would be more appropriate than 7 separate images. MER-C 07:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Every anaglyph has a vertical line of "focus". With changes in distance in the scene this might be reduced to a single point of focus. In the anaglyph here[1] the focus seems to be on the precipice at the left. As one looks to the right, the alignment of the separate red and blue images gets increasingly worse. One can combine a set of images into a panorama by mapping them onto a sphere. But this only contains the angular information in a scene. Depth perception is lost in the process. Anaglyphs preserve the radial information along the line of sight. The two processes are complementary and neither view is complete in itself. If one tries to produce a panoramic anaglyph, one encounters a problem with the sides. Trying to reduce the problem by decreasing the separation with increasing angle also alters the perception of depth at the same time. The only way to preserve a scene is to make a series of anaglyphs. A three dimensional scene could be divided up into a set of views like the faces of a regular polyhedron. With enough overlap one could do panoramas. With two distinct images for each face, the perspective information is preserved. The number of images required to complete the scene depends on the field of view of the camera used. With a 24 degree field of view at least 15 images would be required for a 360 degree panorama and more would be needed if overlap is required to piece the scene together. One would need an adaptive viewer to shift the original images relative to each other in order to bring a particular point into focus. Such a viewer is not generally available at this time. The best that we can do in the way of public service is to publish a series of separate images. --Jbergquist 19:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is a good article on VR and Planetary Exploration. --Jbergquist 19:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Found a permanent home for one of your anaglyphs. MER-C 02:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

## Orphaned fair use image (Image:Hro 102 15a.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hro 102 15a.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 11:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

## Leó Szilárd

Hi there. I just ran across your 13 January 2006 addition to The World Set Free, where you assert the following: "As fate or coincidence would have it, in reality the physicist Leó Szilárd read the book in 1932, conceived of the idea of nuclear chain reaction in 1933, and filed for patents on it in 1934."

I am very interested in this statement, as I am currently writing a history of engineering. Do you have a citable reference for these statements? If so, I think the Wikipedia article really needs them. Thanks for your help. Cbdorsett 08:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It looks like another user found a reputable source for the statement. FYI, we can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources. Cbdorsett 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

## Fair use rationale for Image:Saddam verdict.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Saddam verdict.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -Panser Born- (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free image (Image:CHEK-TV logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:CHEK-TV logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

## Welcome some feedback

Hello, my name is Isucheme and I am currently writing my first Wikipedia article on the Churchill-Bernstein Equation. The equation is used to find an average (convection) heat transfer coefficient to use in Newton’s Law of cooling for a cylinder in cross flow, and the mass transfer analogy, as described in the article, can be employed to find a mass transfer coefficient. I would appreciate any feed back you can give me on my article so I can make it a great article. Thank you. Isucheme 16:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of turbulent flow and the Navier-Stokes equation is limited. I don't have an engineering background in fluid mechanics. Heat transport takes place by a 1st order convection and a 2nd order diffusion. The same is true for mass transport. What the Navier-Stokes equations might miss are boundary conditions. Energy can be exchanged by collisions and there may be some surface effects of the cylinder that need to be included. As to the transformation from one pair of dimensionless numbers to another, I am not competent to respond but if the form of the correlations match does that guarantee that the coefficients in each correlation will match also? I ran across a short but interesting article on Kolmogorov microscales today. Do dimensionless numbers and microscales have anything in common? The article is technical but some information about the origin of the equation and the names associated with it might be helpful. --Jbergquist 07:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

## Re: Why is there no Moderate political party in the US? (Located originally at Talk:Moderate)

The two-party system leaves no room for presenting a Moderate position. While the Democrats represent
the Liberals and the Republicans the Conservatives there seems to be no place for Moderates. The
political system has mechanisms in place such as "winner takes all" which tends to inhibit the growth
of a third party and ensure the status quo. The two major parties are content to split the Moderates
between them. Perhaps it is time for the Moderates to assert themselves politically. There are ways
short of forming a third party that they can do this such as forming a Moderate Caucus in Congress.
It is one way that we might fight extremism and get Congress to look to the nation's business instead
of waiting for the next election and a new government.--Jbergquist (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


There are several third parties that already exist that follow moderate beliefs. One, most likely the most major one, is known as the Centrist Party. Unfortunately, I, myself never agree with third parties, as I see their struggles as getting them nowhere. You can see we have never had a third party candidate as President. The only time we haven't actually had a Republican or a Democrat as president was George Washington (Who had no political party affiliation, as he said it would divide the country. You could define him a moderate, in some sense.) and the four presidents who were in the Whig Party (William Henry Harrison (1841), John Tyler (1841-1845), Zachary Taylor (1849-1850), Millard Fillmore (1850-1853)). In my opinion, I'd say that you would be better off defining yourself as a moderate, not joining a party, and simply showing support for whatever candidate or cause as you see fit. - JWhitt (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

## License tagging for File:Brachistochrone path function.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Brachistochrone path function.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

## License tagging for File:Bachistochrone path function.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Bachistochrone path function.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

## Synthetic fuel

Hi, Jbergquist. There is a plan to improve the Synthetic fuel article to the GA level. In this process, there are still several issues, which should be done before renominating this article for GAN. As you have contributed to the article and/or discussion, you may be interested to participate in the discussion about the article improvement. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

## Equation of time

Thank you for working to improve the article Equation of time. I noticed you have changed some statements that have references, but have not added any references of your own. I hope that whenever you change a statement, you are looking in the cited work to make sure it agrees with you. It is important that we not misrepresent the views of any source. If you think a particular source is wrong, I encourage you to discuss it on the article's talk page.

Also, do you have a source for the dates when the equation of time is 0? This is certainly not something that would be obvious to the average reader, and so should have a source. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The reference for the definition of the equation of time in terms of right ascension is given in A. E. Roy, Orbital Motion, p. 45. I included this in the edit summary. The change in sign was necessary for the difference between mean time and solar time to have the same sign as in the graphs. The right ascension of the Sun includes both the change along the ecliptic due to orbital motion and that due to declination so the right ascension of the mean Sun has to be considered a uniform motion. The practice of subtracting the apparent solar time from the mean solar time seems to go back to Ptolemy but he is mainly concerned with the mean anomaly and true anomaly used in orbit calculations. He also thinks in terms of meridian and equatorial motion of the Sun. Thanks for pointing out the error on the zeros which show up on leap years. Calculation shows that the zeros currently occur on the same dates each year with the exception of 12 June and 24 December in leap years. These times occur an average of 11 minutes earlier each year so the dates will change over time but not very rapidly. --Jbergquist (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The dates cited are those of the formulas and do not include the effects of perturbabions on the Earth's orbit. --Jbergquist (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
It's certainly good that the sign of result from the equation agrees with the sign in the graph. Please note that references in edit summaries don't really count, because it is quite impractical for a reader to find it. As far as the reader is concerned, the article says that the equation matches that given by Duffet-Smith p. 96. I do not have that book so cannot say if the current version of the article matches Duffet-Smith or not. I don't think the article should state that Duffet-Smith agrees with the equation stated in the article unless you have read Duffet-Smith.
The Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2011 states on page C2 that the equation of time at 12:00 UT = 12 hours - tabulated value of ephemeris transit found on pages C7-C21 (to a precision of 1 second). Looking at the graph, we see that near the 45th day of the year, the equation of time is -14 minutes. Looking at page C7 of the almanac, we see the ephemeris transit is, to the nearest second, 12:14:10, so the equation of time is -14 min 10 s. This shows the sign of the graph agrees with the current convention of astronomers. If you are unable to locate the Duffet-Smith work, I suggest you change the reference to refer to the work you used. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I've added some references to The Sun in the Church by Heilbron, J. L. which support the statements made. --Jbergquist (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Page A8 of the Auxiliary Data section of Planetary and Lunar Coordinates published by HM Nautical Almanac Office also gives the formula Equation of time = apparent minus mean solar time with the value of -14.2 min. for Feb 14. The value for Jan 1 is -3.2 min. and we would expect the apparent sun to gain on the mean sun near perihelion when the Earth moves relatively more quickly in its orbit thus making the value more positive. But the values actually become more negative in the table which is what one gets if one uses Equation of time = mean minus apparent solar time seemingly indicating that this is the correct formula. But it is not as simple as that since conversion of the Sun's heliocentric longitude to right ascension and declination alters the apparent solar time too. Using the J2000 Kepleriah elements from the Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac to compute the Earth's orbit and Roy's RA formula agrees well with the equation of time and analemma that are in the tables and graphs shown. --Jbergquist (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I've restored the equation involving times and rewrote the part about right ascensions. I shouldn't have confused the right ascensions with transit times and this seems to be what I was missing. --Jbergquist (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

### RA vs α

I see that where you originially had α in the first paragraph of the "Mathematical Details" section (as it is in the rest of the article) you changed it to RA. I don't think there is any reason that someone would be confused with α. I think it would be best to keep the α throughout unless you have a good reason not to. --Lasunncty (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to emphasize the use of hours, mins and secs for right ascension as opposed to degrees for the angle. According to Otto Neugebauer, A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, the modern definition of the "equation of time", E, is the difference between the right ascension of the mean Sun and that of the true Sun or,
${\displaystyle E={\overline {\alpha }}-\alpha }$.
He also discusses Ptolemy's "equation" [of time] found in Almagest III.5-9 for which the stated maximum difference was 8 1/3 time-degrees or 5/9ths of an hour. --Jbergquist (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether we use hours, degrees, or radians, it is still the same quantity. Since this concept may not be obvious to the lay person who reads this article, perhaps a better explanation could be given. Even so, changing units is a simple conversion and doesn't warrant a separate variable in my opinion. --Lasunncty (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The point of view originally adopted in the article appears to treat the "equation" of time as functional correction to the mean solar time that gives the true solar time. It appears to be an attempt to rationalize the equation of time as a means of finding the position of the Sun using the mean solar time as the primary quantity which would be the case if one had an accurate clock to determine the time. If one compares the passage of time during the day with that during the night one will likely notice a discrepancy throughout the year. Sundials, used to determine the time by the Sun , and nocturnals or their equivalent, used to determine the time by the stars, will give different results. Ptolemy seems to be aware of the difference and the need for an "adjustment." The article might benefit from a little more history and should be probably be cleaned up to improve continuity but I'd prefer to put that off for the time being. --Jbergquist (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

## Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:2006 Jun & Dec Solstices.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 00:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

## ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I have published a complete manual about perspective included that curvilinear. In this manual You can find perspective with 4, 5, and 6 vanishing points.

Please have a look at this http://massimo-marrazzo.deviantart.com/

There is also a free pdf tutorial: "How to draw and examples".

I wonder if is possible include in the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvilinear_perspective) some images taken from my book, insert a ISBN code for my book and a link to the tutorial.

If possible I'd like insert some examples and a chart with different types of curvilinear perspective.

This is not a commercial link because is normal to include a isbn to a book to learn more about a specific argument, Even in this page, about curvilinear perspective, there is a isbn to the book of Albert Flocon and André Barre.

I'm new on Wikipedia and I don't want break any rules, so I hope if you can tell me some advice

Massimo

Thanks  :-) Max Mar (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)