User talk:The Photon

Welcome!

Hello, The Photon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name 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 someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! CambridgeBayWeather 04:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DC Steady State vs. DC

There is not contradiction. You have equated DC steady state and DC which is incorrect. A circuit consisting of an inductor and a DC voltage source has no DC steady state solution yet the voltage across the inductor is constant (DC). Alfred Centauri 11:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your follow-up:

Within Electrical Engineering, DC is used as a synonym for 'constant' as in a DC (constant) voltage or a DC (constant) current. DC steady state is that state, if it exists, of a circuit described by a differential equation where the transient(s) have decayed away - typically the solution as t goes to infinity. Not understanding the difference here, and I disagree that it is a subtle difference, leads to confusion. One more thing - a DC circuit is an altogether different concept. A DC circuit is a circuit composed of DC sources and resistors - that is, the circuit has no memory.

When I say it is commonly said that an inductor is a 'short circuit at DC', I'm only repeating what I have often hear and am not implying anything about how I define 'at DC'. If by 'at DC', it is meant 'in a circuit in DC steady state', then the statement that an inductor is a 'short circuit at DC' is correct. It is my opinion that this is not typically the case, though.

The DC analysis of a non-DC circuit requires that capacitors be replaced with an open circuit and inductors be replaced with a wire. Thus, the idea that the inductor is a 'short circuit at DC'. However, the solution, if it exists, is the DC steady state solution of the circuit. If the resulting circuit is inconsistent - as in the case of a DC voltage source in parallel with an inductor - the DC steady state solution does not exist.

I would say that the circuit composed of an ideal capacitor and an ideal inductor has no DC steady state solution except for the trivial case of zero initial conditions. Take that to mean what you will. Alfred Centauri 23:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waveguide (electromagnetism)--Sorry

Sorry about my earlier reversion. I just couldn't see that dup material for looking!. Maybe thats why I left it there in the first place! Must get new glasses!--Light current 07:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Root/hub/branch/backlink idea

Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed critique of the proposed system. I think if Lindosland and I had been aware of the many alternatives existing, we would not have started this expedition. Mine and Lindsolands aims are, I think, different. I was really looking for ease of navigation and ease of editing in approximately equal parts. Lindosland is more for making editing easier and not so much on nav.

The root page idea does seem to have brought up some valid objections and a general dislike of the scheme so it looks destined to die. However I for one would still like to have workable scheme for

quick and easy navigation around a topic
some sort of organisation of articles for ease of editing and structure (to avoid duplication etc).

Now both you and Ambush Commander have suggested other alternatives so I suppose its up to us to sort thro' these and come up with an alternative idea. Thanks for clarifying the issue--Light current 04:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your summary at WikiProject Electronics of the tools already available at was amazing--well written, well thought out, and very helpful for analyzing the situation. Thank you! ~MDD 46 96 01:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Testing in the live articles

Hi Lindosland. Please don't use the live articles to test ideas. See WP:POINT. Wait until you're committed to your ideas as a permanent edit, then be bold. -- The Photon 05:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note your comment, but have been working on this idea (with LightCurrent and others) over a considerable period, considering many comments, and finding it a particularly difficult problem. We are at a point where the same objections are being asked again and again based on failure to grasp what it is about, and trying to negotiate every change on every page would take forever. I therefore plead that this is a special case: this is best demonstrated, rather than explained, and it is potentially of major benefit to the working of Wikipedia. I've only used two major series of article for the purpose, both of which were in need of 'cleanup', and I would not have proceded if I did not feel that what I am now proposing meets all the objections so far. Be bold it says! Reverting is dead easy after all - I only added one word to each page, the woek was in building the templates! --Lindosland 11:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline format in Laser

See User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#Timeline_format_in_Laser Anthony Appleyard 05:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semiconductor

Hey, you're making some nice edits to the semiconductor article. If you're planning to continue working on it, please take a look at Talk:Semiconductor/Archives/2012#Todo and add your comments. Transport mechanics are of special interest since the article doesn't discuss them in any detail and I think it's an important topic to cover. -- mattb @ 2006-09-07 05:41Z

Laser

Hi, You just added a couple of references to the Laser article. You gave the "accessed" date as Dec 1, 2007. I'm not sure if you meant Jan 1, 2007 or Dec 31, 2006. -- The Photon 18:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads-up, all sorted, New Year mixup... SeanMack 10:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Transmission line element.svg

I made a different version of this image. Would it be ok with you if I replaced yours? — Omegatron 00:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reply at User Talk:Omegatron. The Photon 04:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

uppercase/lowercase

“Only first word uppercase per WP:NAME.” – I see. Thanks. And the bold title at the beginning of the articles text too, I guess?--Speck-Made 10:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia philosophy

As an engineer, I very much like your mini-essay on addressing technical matters in Wikipedia. In fact, now that I think about it, if something like this isn't already plainly stated in the Wikipedia:<something> wiki-space, it should be! —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic band structure vs diffraction

Hi. Considering what's written in the first lines in the above article - what do you mean by relating the band structure to diffraction ? band structure is a 'ladder' of energy levels rather than a symmetrical distribution of interfering waves emanating from an opening. BentzyCo (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAR for Optical fiber

Optical fiber has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --A. di M. (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simple laser diode.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Simple laser diode.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 08:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, The Photon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, The Photon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]