User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Spinningspark. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Why did you undo my edit of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohms_law ?

I thought the link was perfectly valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.95.18 (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It adds nothing other than a calculator for a trivially simple calculation that could be done on, well, a calcualtor. See WP:ELNO especially , point 1 does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article plus it is carrying adverts and has a page selling products which is putting it in the points 4 and 5 direction as well (although I might tolerate this if it was a genuinely unique resource). The default position is always not to put in external links, they should only be used where it is impossible to include the information in our own article; for instance a link in an art article to an image of a work of art which we cannot include for copyright reasons. SpinningSpark 09:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

fair enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.32.67 (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you

Just wanted to say hello, and thank you for responding to my question! Jasonaltenburg (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Just ask if you need to know anything else. SpinningSpark 15:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

IRC channel

I am Spinningspark on IRC. SpinningSpark 19:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Zobel network

I've uploaded some new images. There's a slightly childish chunkiness about them, but I think they're a lot clearer and more consistent than my previous versions. Thanks for the help; further constructive criticism welcome. Certes (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in the discussion I've just noticed at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop#Clearing_the_circuit_backlog. Certes (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do you still have the original numbers or formulae that went into File:Zobel (10) Response plot.PNG or File:Bode response.png? Using them directly in an SVG would be more accurate than reading them off the PNG with a hair cursor, as well as much less effort. I should be able to reconstruct File:Video_line_response.png myself, assuming it's theoretical rather than experimental data and ω is on a logarithmic scale in all three images. Certes (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

First draft at File:Zobel (10) Response plot.svg; comments welcome. (Would a blue background make the yellow more visible?) I'll not put this into the article yet as it would look odd alongside your more traditional plots. Do you think it should be moved further up into Zobel network#High pass? Certes (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Shame

Hey, just wanted to complement you on this. I certainly got a kick out of it. ;) -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 23:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should make a template if you can think of a few more who deserve it. SpinningSpark 23:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I can only think of one other deserving of such a barn star, but I'm sure that there are more out there. -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 00:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou very much. Asking for barnstars does work though, I've got nine (although I probably shouldn't have all of them). I'm sure User:ScribbleStick would be deserving of that Barnstar, if that's who you had in mind. Spongefrog (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've got another one. User:Bugboy52.40 made this userbox

Userboxes

This user is desprite for a barnstar.

Spongefrog (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgot about those. Hehe. Six or Seven then. I'll give Scribblestick a shame barnstar now. Spongefrog (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Zobel (14) Balanced Bridge T.PNG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zobel (14) Balanced Bridge T.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 00:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Zobel (15) Balanced Zobel half section.PNG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zobel (15) Balanced Zobel half section.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 00:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcoming

Hi. I have a ro.wikipedia.org Doru001 account. Can it/should it be merged with this one? Doru001 (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. Doru001 (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Spinningspark. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 17.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I do apologize for my mistakes; I did not see the {{KeepLocal}} and I would suggest placing those in a more visible location. The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 21:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Once more. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Why did you undo my edit of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohms_law (2nd Part)?

Hi, SppinningSpark. I'd like you to review the editing of my addition, or at least explain me the reasons why you discarded it. And yes, I've read your justifications in the earlier item. I think that discarding it for being only a calculator is a weak interpretation of its purpose, because this application automatically guesses the unknown value as you type (which none of the others “calculators“ published in external links do). Thus it's useful for verification of the knowledge acquired for anyone in an electronics oriented high school. There is no use for me to hide the fact that I made (programmed) this web app by myself and I see it with subjective eyes, but despite of this I made it thinking that there was a lack in the internet for this kind of apps and that I would love to have anything like when I was studying. The advertising in it, in my opinion, does not disqualify it as a useful addition for students and doesn't make it a spammer page (does not intend to sell a product) and the intention (mine) is not to promote it but to increase the posibilities of Wikipedia. Thanks for your time, and I hope my message to you is transmitted as friendly as it really is, in spite of my bad English. Thanks again, Elpiades (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Elpiades, before I answer you, a couple of points about Wikipedia conventions. Firstly, new posts go to the bottom of talk pages which is why I have moved yours down here. Secondly, discussion of article content should go on the article talk page where all the regular editors of that page can take part - even if you could manage to convince me you were right, some other editor may still delete you if the debate is not made visisble to them and they get a chance to take part.

My reasons for removing your link are to be found in the External links guidelines which you should read before going any further. Your link does not seem to be covered by anything in the What to link section and falls foul of several sections of Links normally to be avoided including particularly WP:EL#EL8.

The purpose of advertisements is always to sell something. If you have "Ads by Google" on your site, your site is selling, even if that is not its primary function. That does not entirely rule out a site for inclusion, but it should have at least one of the positive requirements listed and none of the other negative ones.

You say you want to increase the possibilities of Wikipedia. This is done by adding to our articles and making them better, not by directing our readers to somebody elses site. If you really want to contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest you add something to our articles other than links. SpinningSpark 21:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello SpinningSpark, first of all I sincerely want to thank you for guiding me through Wikipedia conventions. I'm new here and I knew I couldn't avoid some mistakes in my first steps. This will be my last words about the subject in your talk page and if I convince you (hope I do) I'll begin my writing only at the article, otherwise I will desist.

Before I posted the link, I carefully read the External links guidelines and found no disagreement with my actions. I will paste the relevant points and discuss them:

In What to link

Is the site content accessible to the reader? Certainly is, no password or registration required to use it.

Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Just as useful as any specific-purpose calculator, not less useful than the elder java calculator already linked.

Is the link functional and likely to remain functional? You have to trust me on this, yes.

In Links normally to be avoided

Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming. Not applicable, the site does not qualify as spammer, I will not paste it, just get into it if you're unsure.

Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. Not applicable, you have to agree that its primary purpose is not to sell products or services, just as Wikipedia's primary purpose is not to collect money from users, but to deliver information; and if you visit the page you'll notice that it only has one banner of advertising in it. Surely not objectionable amount of ads, it's only my hope to pay the site's own hosting.

Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) It's a common mistake to confuse Java (downloable plugin and external application) with JavaScript (running in every modern browser without needing to install anything else). Pythia does not require an external application; the already listed external calculator does, so this point is not applicable.

I agree with what you said about embeding it in the article itself and not forcing the reader to follow an external link, but the dynamic nature of this page is technically impossible to do it. Wikipedia does not accept scripting inside of an article.

I'm starting to bore myself with my own arguments (I hope you aren't), but I think I made my point. Thanks again and good luck!

Elpiades (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can find the time..

Would you help me out, and chop off the top of the photos in the infoboxes for Mick Taylor and Tim Reynolds? (Well, you know, trim the photos, but, when you see, it should be a simple slice from what you've told me). Wish I were allowed to do such things from this computer! If you're busy, then, that's OK too! --leahtwosaints (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I forgot. Damn, I hate that. There are photos of Peter Gabriel in his wild costumes from the earliest days with Genesis. I uploaded them. Can you cut these too?

The Watcher of the Skies
The Moonlit Knight], and one placed already, [1]. Hopefully, I'll find another person to help with these menial tasks, or WIN a computer (not likely) soon. Hugs. --leahtwosaints (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Appreciation

I just want you to know, I appreciate our discussion on the help talk:reverting page. I very much appreciate your perspective and input. Thank you(Smallvillefanatic (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)).

Appreciation

Thanks for notifying me about the comments at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. It's the first time, to my knowledge, that anyone has ever brought me up on "charges". I hope I've not overdone it in my reply. Again, thanks. Un school 18:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think you have overdone it, and I smell troll. Don't worry about it, and don't feed it. SpinningSpark 18:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		Thank you for your input at the Graphic Lab, which helped clear up Category:Circuit images that should be in SVG format. We'll try to keep the categories low ;-) Zoo Fari 17:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions

I know you aren't fond of music articles, but Crowded House is a GA ranked article, but is such a sorry mess, I don't know who to tell to have it re-examined.
Another editor has been making clips for my two pet projects, Cat Stevens (GA) and Derek Trucks (start). Do you know, or to whom may I ask about the requisite justification forms re: the sound bites being copyright snips and (shrunken) album images? I hate to ask but..? Thanks Sparkly. --leahtwosaints (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Topology - expansion material

The article got tagged for deletion. I suspect that you meant to create the article in your user space, so I moved it to User:Spinningspark/Work in progress/Topology - expansion material. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Re your message: Yes. =) Well, okay, not really... When I delete articles, I usually check the contribution history of the editor who created the article. The note about David Eppstein, whom I recognize, also made me pause so I looked into it further. Your most recent contributions were to subpages with the User:Spinningspark/Work in progress prefix, so I took a look at it and located the article entry towards the bottom and guessed your naming convention. I was going to fix the link for you, but I figured that I would leave that up to you (I generally don't like editing other editor's user space pages). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar! It is most unexpected and I appreciate it. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, whats up

I need your help. I know that you're busy, but I need you to help me. I've nominated Eva Stellenbosch for deletion twice (it's obviously not notable), but it keeps getting replaced with a merge tag for List of characters in the Alex Rider series. Then I see in an edit summary "incorrect merge procedure corrected on 2009-X-X" (cant remember date). But the article's still there and there has been no merge. Anyway, there's no need to merge. All the information is in List of Alex Rider.... It's also better written. Have I done something wrong? I probably have. Sorry. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 09:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A redirect! Why didn't I think of that! I knew there was something I had forgotten. Thankyou. Thankyouthankyouthankyou. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 19:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

OUT to Give up this time (not you, just this whole Commons thing)

Hi Sparky, You know how uptight I get when stuff that is supposed to work doesn't work. Before, it was because I didn't understand uploading photos from Flickr to Commons, remember? This time it's because I don't understand .. HOW to upload photos from Flickr to Commons-- after doing it, and having it usually work these last months!! I am just so angry, because I feel like the Wizard of Oz is behind that stupid Wikimedia curtain, promising great things, like upload your photos, (which are all BY or BY-CC) and of which we have NO photo on en.wikipedia (and neither do our other-language counterparts). WHAT my problem is, I am finding weirdness as in, uploading the photo of one member of a band, and 5 minutes later, uploading another member, only to find, the next day, that only one was actually uploaded (the band is Little Feat), but not the other? Or like, today, I try to upload a Grammy Awarded musician, who has no photo.. and (maybe because he's not really well known or something), they deny that, too? What can I do. Again, I feel so frustrated like throwing my hands into the air and screaming and never returning to WP. If I don't know what terrible wrongs I'm doing, how can I fix them??? They're like this: [2] Carter Beauford has a photo in his infobox in en.wikipedia --it's so bad it has to go.. that should have been nominated for deletion. There is photographer in Brazil who has permitted us to have this MUCH better photo, and 3 other photos of members of the Dave Matthews Band, after already giving us three other great photos that went in without a hitch. Today, I think, "Well, perhaps Godzilla decided not to log into his Throne in Commons today and I'll try to upload the photo again." Now it says the image exists in Commons under it's name- "Carter_Beauford.jpeg" I can't FIND it. This is killing me, partly because the photo owners start getting nervous wondering what I am doing with their photos! After all, I just talked them out of their copyrights, to them, it's their livlihood. Please help me before I lose it. Please. --leahtwosaints (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I also uploaded (supposedly):

[3] [4] [5] What I'm saying, I guess is.. what's happening in Commons? Am I being blocked? Can others like you get in? Cause I sure couldn't find Carter Beauford's photo, and after placing it, looking pretty good in Wikipedia, it now mostly has a blank spot where the picture should be or a red x and his name. I'm afraid to upload anything else. What to do? Sorry, I freaked out like that, BTW, after asking people for photos, they reluctantly give in, and then, I can't even show them what's up.. and I can't find these musicians' photos, though they must be someplace, all I see is the screen with the green check mark, but no photo to go with it.--leahtwosaints (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you quite sincerely. I don't even know how to do it manually, or to categorize things at Wikimedia Commons-- I generally find a photo that we need, upload it, using the Bryan Flickr device and then within the end of the day, I attach it directly to the articles that were lacking here. You have put up with my whining, cajoling, and I'll try to mend the manic-depressive responses. THANKS. --leahtwosaints (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

One last time. Foolishly, I thought that uploading one more: [6] for Stefan Lessard's page would work, yet, even here in the USA, at 3:12 AM ? It isn't uploaded. Can I be taught to manually upload things to Commons? I know I'm a slow (but determined!) learner..--leahtwosaints (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of WTH

I would like to protest the A5 speedy deletion of the soft redirect at WTH. Soft redirects are expressly not supposed to be subject to article deletion processes (AFD) and article CSD reasons (A1 - A9). They are subject to Redirect processes (RFD) and redirect CSD reasons (R2, etc.). - TexasAndroid (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Restored, I had arrived at the article through the last edit by 76.24.106.141 and had not realised that it was normally a soft redirect. Apologies, did not check carefully enough. SpinningSpark 08:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm somewhat the self-appointed guardian of soft redirects, if only because noone else really cares about them enough to want the job. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Analogue filter

On July 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Analogue filter, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

21:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Roll-off

On July 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roll-off, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I got it

But what do I put on the adoption page?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I gave it a shot.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 00:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OK I'm lame

I left a message for you under your manual upload instructions, but it seems you didn't get it. I uploaded Jeff Sipe days ago; it still hasn't turned up. Can you help? Please read what I wrote about where I got lost trying the manual upload thing- it partially has to do with finding the template, (there's a bunch there) and trying to figure out how to fill it out. I just am too slow a learner. I tried several times, it's driving me crazy now. I would give Anything at this point to have somebody in Commons adopt me.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, (and only God knows why) it uploaded! I am shocked! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Could it be because you finally followed the instructions? SpinningSpark 23:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I fear that it's mostly in part that a lot of the info had already been entered into Commons by the crashing Bryan tool. [blush] SS, I'm like, the kind of person who has trouble figuring out how to set an alarm clock! Also, I realized when you said to do it, and I feared it would ALL be lost, I remembered that you can always change the name of the photo with the jpg added. OK, a couple new easy things:

I found a free licensed photo from a German website. I hoped I filled in the right stuff for keeping this image for en.wikipedia use, but I've already heard from another user saying I screwed up. [7] ??! I think a band photo of Blue Oyster Cult like this is worth having.
How can a photo that is enormous in the infobox be made to look smaller? (Easiest way, please) I know this has been HELL WEEK with me, so I do apologize, but looking at Peter Gabriel like he's GOD, and some others I recently passed, oh, Jeff Baxter what can I do? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Adoption question

How do I do the refs for page numbers? I am currently working on an article I created about a book series back in April, and I don't want to have to find the refs again. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 19:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Preview of electric potential versus voltage

The following is a section I plan to add to 'Electric potential'. The difference between electric potential and voltage is a little tricky. The section is derived from facts extracted from Wikipedia itself. Please let me know your opinion. The Small Text are comments meant only for you.

Electric potential within a capacitor

Electric potential ( $\phi _{\mathbf {E} }$ ) is potential energy ( $U_{E}$ ) per charge ( $q$ ).

\phi _{\mathbf {E} }={\frac {U_{E}}{q}}

Force between charges causes this potential energy. A volt ( $V$ ) is a unit of electric potential ( $\phi _{\mathbf {E} }$ ). By definition, capacitance (C) is a measure of the amount of electric charge stored (or separated) for a given electric potential.

C={\frac {Q}{\phi _{\mathbf {E} }}}={\frac {Q}{V}}

Within a charged capacitor, a minus charge ( $q^{-}$ ) has the same potential energy as a plus charge ( $q^{+}$ ). Therefore, Potential energy ( $\phi _{\mathbf {E} }$ ) is the same within both capacitor plates.

\phi _{\mathbf {q^{-}} }=\phi _{\mathbf {q^{+}} }

The potential energy of a plus charge is not 'minus' the potential energy of a minus charge, because total potential energy = the sum of the plus and negative potential energies.

A charged capacitor has a difference in voltage between its plates and equal electric potentials within its plates. For example: Two capacitors with the same capacitance and charge will have the same electric potential within every plate, regardless of the capacitors’ placement within a series or parallel circuit. The output voltage of capacitors in series is the sum of capacitor voltages.

The above statement can be hard to understand. It seems logical that an electron concentration causes negative voltage and a proton concentration causes plus voltage. The problem is that within a circuit, positives and negatives are relative to ground. The position of ground on a voltage source does not determine if a concentration of plus charges or a concentration of negative charges cause the device's voltage

Capacitor energy versus separation of charge

The charges within a capacitor do not behave like a collection of plus charges on one plate and a collection of minus charges on the other plate. The stored energy ( $U$ ) within a capacitor is:

U_{\mathbf {E} }={\frac {1}{2}}{\frac {Q^{2}}{C}}

Substituting $C=\epsilon _{r}{\frac {A}{d}}$ in the above equation results in:

U_{\mathbf {E} }=d{\frac {Q^{2}}{2\epsilon _{r}A}}

For a fixed amount of charge, increasing distance between plates (d) to infinity (in theory) will increase potential energy ( $U_{\mathbf {E} }$ ) to infinity.

(U_{\mathbf {E} }\rightarrow \infty )=(d\rightarrow \infty ){\frac {Q^{2}}{2\epsilon _{r}A}}

Increasing the distance between a collection of plus charges from a collection of minus charges does not increase their potential energy to infinity.

I can site (non-Wiki) references and descriptions of physics lab experiments that either demonstrate or measure the increase in attractive force between capacitor plates that result from intentionally separating the plates (including influence machines and Whimshurst generators). In other words, the equation that predicts an increase in potential energy caused by increasing distance between plates, is verifyable through experiment.

Charge concentration versus current direction

In an LC oscillator, just before max voltage, current flows into the capacitor. Just after max voltage, current flows from the capacitor. In both cases, magnetism is near zero. If electron concentration within a capacitor indeed caused electron acceleration, the acceleration would occur both before and after max voltage. Relative polarity of magnetism in the coil and voltage in the capacitor (not amount of capacitor voltage) controls direction of current flow.

Before posting, I plan to provide reference to a detailed description of voltage and current within an LC oscillator. The description should include the following:

There is a problem with the equations used to describe the relation of magnetism and current in an LC oscillator. They fail to apply to an LC oscillator with a superconductive inductor. There is no reason why an LC oscillator should not function with a superconductive inductor.

Adding a voltage supply to the ends of superconductive coil will charge the coil, but disconnecting the coil’s leads from the voltage supply will cause magnetic quench. To charge a superconductive magnet, heat a segment of the superconducting wire until the segment is no longer superconductive, and then apply volts to the segment. While the segment has applied DC voltage, magnetism constantly increases. Cooling the wire segment will remove the coil’s voltage and resistance, without decreasing magnetism. Therefore, in a RLC oscillator with a superconductive inductor; during the time voltage converts to magnetism, it does so until capacitor & resistor volts are zero.

In an RLC oscillator, when capacitor and resistor volts reach zero: current in the resistor is zero, magnetism in the inductor is at its maximum level and current reverses direction.

From Maxwell’s equations table 2: Ampere’s law is

\oint _{\partial S}\mathbf {B} \cdot \mathrm {d} \mathbf {l} =\mu _{0}I_{S}+\mu _{0}\varepsilon _{0}{\frac {\partial \Phi _{E,S}}{\partial t}}

. In an RLC circuit, when the magnetic field is maximum, current (I) is its maximum level. This current does not reach the resistor, because resistor volts equal zero.

From LC_circuit#Time_domain_solution:

V_{L}(t)=L{\frac {di_{L}}{dt}}\,

. Voltage is supposed to be maximum when the change in current per time is at its maximum level. The maximum change in current per time occurs during maximum magnetism, because that is when current reverses. At this point, voltage is supposed to be at its maximum level, but in reality, voltage in the capacitor and resistor are zero.

From Inductor:Stored energy:

E_{\mathrm {stored} }={1 \over 2}LI^{2}

. This equation does not apply to an RLC oscillator during maximum magnetism, because current within the resistor is zero during maximum magnetism.

Ampere’s law is also violated during zero magnetism. Resistor volts are maximum, therefore current to the inductor is supposed to be maximum. In reality the coil has zero magnetism.

Magnetic induction versus charge velocity

Magnetic force on a moving point charge is centripetal force (Lorentz force law). Centripetal force never increases an object’s speed or kinetic energy. Therefore, moving a coil through a magnetic field can cause current in the coil w/o increasing electron kinetic energy.

Most people believe that a magnetic field can increase the kinetic energy of electrons. They are wrong.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vze2wgsm1 (talk • contribs)

I didn't share my account

I think you're confusing something here. My account's password was never given out nor have I ever shared it. The user was afraid that his IP might make people vandalise his account or get confused with mine (I edited back in the day from the computer he bought from me... so I'm guessing he doesn't/didn't understand how the IP address thing works) or something. Anyways, the problem was fixed awhile ago (he made a report and the issue was cleared up), so... I'm not sure why you've implied that I've shared my account. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 09:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Evan O'Neill Kane

On July 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Evan O'Neill Kane, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Loudspeaker

Hi! I hadn't realized you had undone some of my editing, mainly because I've been editing the article during my breaks at work (I'm still not finished with it). However, thanks for the tip. Cheers! Ronaldomundo (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing

Hi. I think I'm officially retiring from editing Wikipedia articles. Take care. Ronaldomundo (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't go! Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 10:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: analogue filter

You're absolutely right on Helmholtz - I simply missed that the article referred to his fundamental energy conservation work. I added some comments on Zobel FAC. I know they are hard to address. I am surprised the referees did not pick up inconsistent reference formatting in that article. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In a way they did pick up on it, it was noticed that the templates of the few references not inserted by me were mangling the citation. I fixed it by changing those to plain markup for consistency. SpinningSpark 11:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my typo

Of course you're right it was dyne not erg. Very astute! Thank you! :-) --Steve (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the wait

I was doing the Dramaout and had a vacation afterwards. I think I have the math script down. I just want to know about the Ga, FA, DYK stuff.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 02:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the wonderful Otto Zobel page

Irene Staab Zobel was my great aunt and Otto's wife. I remember fondly frequently playing with a set of binoculars as child that my mother explained had once belonged to a man named Otto, our acquiring them as they had no children since they did not marry until their 40's so that Irene could continue her career (married women being expected to stay at home). In fact after my grandfathers death I found myself having inherited a few old 16mm films Otto took in the 30's and 40's. Anyway it is neat to finally learn about the man I knew only through artifacts, Thanks Again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.255.176.97 (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Great to hear from you. What would be extra wonderful is if you could see your way to provide a still picture or two for the article from that 16mm film. At the moment it is completely devoid of images. SpinningSpark 22:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If this Irene S Zobel is the right one she is ten years junior to Otto. SpinningSpark 08:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Equivalent impedence transforms

Hello! Your submission of Equivalent impedance transforms at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dylan 620 (contribs, logs) 15:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I would guess this is about the last day this DYK could be listed, but I've proposed a new hook, since none of the previous ones seemed to be getting the article any traction. Feel free to drop by your nomination's entry to take a look. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 16:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Adopt me

{{adoptme|20090810195536}} I was at the discussion page for adoption. I saw this section of yours that I replied on

Left message at my talk page. Mhera (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

Hi, can I direct you to this again? ceranthor 19:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Failed FAC Otto Zobel

I hoped someone else would vote "yes" .. I should warn first though that not only I write unclear, but also have tendency to teach :) Sorry for details. In my first months on WP, I honestly rewrote Nitrogen-vacancy center (no, no need to look there) - a rather specific article, which was wrong and I tried to straighten. That was my only failed GAN.. My WP experience is if people don't understand your message, they will hardly be positive, even at DYK level. Just few days ago I had a similar problem with three engineers, Robert Yates, Ezra Warner and Peter Durand as potential DYK candidates. I only had one patent text per person (with some minor extras) and decided to leave Yates and Warner be, but to rewrite Durand, trying to present his patent as personal story (clumsily, and deep inside I feel it is not right to have a personal page without even birth and death years).

There might be a chance just to renominate Zobel, hoping that a friendly soul would come out of vacation. (Funny. Before I saved this message I looked at User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Otto_Zobel and found a similar message there. Yes, it is really frustrating that FACs get failed only because of passivity of referees, I take it for granted and after my current FA renomination will probably stop submitting) I would try to give any information which non-specialists could chew on. Obviously, any photo and personal details would be of great help. I actually tried to find those, but failed and I am surprised why, as he passed away so recently (I could easily provide pictures for Nikita Zotov, but here couldn't get even copyrighted information). There should be something left. You might have to look more through printed sources (which I hate myself though).

Regarding your transformer DYK. IMHO, you just need to make it more clear to a non-specialist. Accuracy may be sacrificed for brevity and clarity at DYK - it is even better be obscure, or many would not read the article itself! Forgive me, my English is poor, but "can make an electrical open circuit cause a short circuit in another part of the circuit" is not good writing. Materialscientist (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to watch that page, and so missed your comment that you had written the alt text. It looked pretty good; I just now tweaked it to try to improve it. I'm afraid that I don't have time right now to review aspects of the article other than alt text, and so can't say whether I'd support it. Eubulides (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding inviting FAC reviewers, yes, why not. Otherwise chances to get proper review are negligible. Even is the article passes, it can get delisted later. My nom is at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Synthetic_diamond/archive2, but it is entirely up to you to look there or not. Off course I, as anyone here, would try to get the nomination through - we all have a drive to win, not to lose, but honestly, I have long abandoned (FA/GA) star-collecting desires (rather writing for DYK). Materialscientist (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Spinningspark. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dabomb87 (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Zobel

I'd be happy to give it a copyedit, and to note places where I think there are other problems (ie. tone, content) along the way. If I'm remembering correctly, it looks a lot better than it did, at least at a cursory glance. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would hope that it's getting better, it would be sad if it was going the other way. Yes, please do give it a look over. SpinningSpark 23:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Quarter wave impedance transformer

On August 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Quarter wave impedance transformer, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

EncycloPetey (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 04:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Equivalent impedance transforms

On August 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Equivalent impedance transforms, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

EncycloPetey (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your latest DYK. Please keep writing about network theory! --catslash (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

FA synthetic diamond passed

Sorry, I am not a kind of person who awards barnstars. Just wanted to thank you for your constructive contribution to that FA. Coming back to our brief conversation on FA system, your review was the best and only (well maybe Cryptic C62 too) attempt to look at what is written rather than how it is arranged. That is probably why I retired from nominating FA/GAs. Materialscientist (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Unrestrained praise is always more welcome than barnstars (but those are welcome too) ! SpinningSpark 15:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Here we go..

		The Referee Barnstar
		I award you, Spinningspark, this Barnstar for your comprehensive review of featured article Synthetic diamond. Not only it spotted problems missed in all previous reviews, but also proposed solutions, which was very appreciated. Materialscientist (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

k filter

Just a note. I need a bit of time to think about your clarification proposal. Right now tasks are falling on me from all angles, that is normal and I will sort things out soon. PS Strangely, I myself learned that : and ; are very different, and how and when to use them, but I'm not a native speaker. This might be for later discussion. Materialscientist (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem with rewriting, but first please look at previous version and try to understand why I rewrote it (repetitions and unclear phrasing on who did what). There were problems there. Materialscientist (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi- If you find the chance..

My computer is down, and I'm using my old man's computer this few minutes on the sly. Needless to say, I can't do anything till it's fixed. When or if you get the chance, could you take a look at the Cat Stevens article, and help crop the top off the last photo so it looks right and fits? It's at the end of the article. I'd very much appreciate your help. Thanks again. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

My humble thanks once again. You are my hero. :) --Leahtwosaints (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Spinning Spark

This is Munich calling. Please get in touch via email. Greenbar (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)