User talk:Omegatron/Archive04

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between October 2005 and December 2005.

Post replies to the

.)

---

Could you have a look at project page and let us know your thoughts on the merge/split proposals please. Thanks!--Light current 00:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'O' I understand your reasons for moving irrelevant chit chat to the Project page from article talk pages. The only thing I'm concerned about is trying to find things on the project talk page. As time progresses, its going to get worse. Have you any suggestions on how to overcome this problem? I mean can we have more than one project talk page?--Light current 00:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, when I said irrelevant I meant not particularly relevant to the page it was on. Any way have you any other suggestions re our project page? Its gonna get very big very quick, you know.--Light current 01:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the very nice looking image you added to Bode Plot. RJFJR 05:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal for a new navigation link

Thanks in advance! Mamawrites 11:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

]

New Engineering Wiki

Engineering Wiki is a wiki entirely dedicated to collecting information about Engineering. I invite you to join this wiki.

You did such a nice job on the

]

I would, but I never learned them very well. If someone made a simple version or provided me with the equations to make one, it would be a lot faster. — Omegatron 01:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No offence,'O' but just what did you study at college? User:Light current

"No offence"? Really? — Omegatron 03:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dug out my old textbook. Seems that given the transfer function in Laplace form H(s) you evaluate for H(jω) and convert to magnituded and phase H(jω) =A(ω) e ^{j φ(ω)} and plot A(ω) vs φ(ω) on polar paper for the Nyquist plot. You need to label points along the curve with the ω but you can display the whole -inf< ω < inf on one page. I don't remember using these either, we did a bunch of Bode phase plots though. Can you just take the data you used for the Bode Phase plot and change it to polar graphing? RJFJR 23:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I haven't done polar plotting in gnuplot, so I'm sure it will take a while to learn. I'll try to do it sometime. You could always download gnuplot yourself and try it. ;-) — Omegatron 00:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could probably find a piece of polar graph paper and a pencil too. But doing the complex numbers might be more work. Do you remember the transfer function you used for the Bode Phase plot? RJFJR 01:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magnitude: G(w,n) = 1 / (sqrt(1 + w**(2*n)))

Phase: P(w) = -atan(w)*180/pi

The actual transfer functions are listed at Butterworth_filter#Normalized_Butterworth_polynomials.

Everything I did to make the plot is documented on the image page. — Omegatron 02:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your imaging

]

I didn't make it. It was made by a

ham and I just modified it. Instead of making letter images, you should just add text in an image editor. We are talking about possible new ways to make images in WikiProject Electronics. — Omegatron 14:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

GREAT WORK - WIKIBOOK AND ALL

Damn, nice work there, really helpful. You people deserve pay ;)

Q

:-) Thanks. — Omegatron 22:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; thanks for your caution. Don't worry: I don't intend on violating 3RR, but I'll periodically and judiciously continue to ensure that valid information regarding information remains in the bit article. You should also be concerned regarding this, since you've been active in reverting too. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 18:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. Please read through

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

again:

"The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others."

If four other people disagree with your edits, your edits probably aren't appropriate for the Wikipedia. Try at Memory Alpha or something. — Omegatron 18:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I completely get the point: I disagree with these users, including yourself, that adding contextual information about bits and information, about fictional or non-fictional entities (the latter of which is also (moreso) completely relevant, yet was still reverted), is invalid; none of the users have yet demonstrated why as of yet satisfactorily. Nor is the 3RR rule an entitlement by you or a majority to squash what may be pertinent or 'trivial' information. Perhaps if said users were not as 'fairweather' and more attentive to the comment and article contents in the first place (as it was up for a couple months), it would not be the issue it now is.

As for Memory Alpha, it has its strengths (and many weaknesses, including that futile background that takes eons to load), but it's not my schtick. And that's not the point.  :) Good day. E Pluribus Anthony 18:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We've given completely satisfactory explanations for our edits. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why your trivial additions are important. Feel free to ask on the Village pump and get more opinions into the mix. — Omegatron 19:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are they satisfactory? I'm uncertain; in the interim, I will field this for public comment and, as well, may continue to make these germane contributions to this article, particularly in the absence of others to the contrary. Take care! E Pluribus Anthony 20:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The merge of articles is disputed. I much appreciate your opnion, thanks. --Mateusc 02:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure exactly what protocol there is to respond to messages posted on my user talk page - if this is the wrong way please tell me. You wrote at User_talk:Fresheneesz#op_amp_edits about my op amp edits. I edited the op amp page because the edit would have helped me in my ECE class if it were there when I first looked it up. You said that "Generally, we want to cover opamp circuits the way they are used" - however obviously we can't go through every permutation of an op amp circuit - we need general cases to consolidate knowlege into learnable peices. I rearranged the page because it showed very clearly that some circuits were special cases of the differential circuit. So not only does it show the special cases now, but it shows where the special cases come from more clearly than before. My goal for this page is to display a even more general op amp circuit so that you can use one equation for any op amp circuit consisting of resistors and power supplys. I'd open to discussion and i'll repost yours and my comments on the discussion page. Fresheneesz 18:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you mentioned me changing Tex to HTML - that I'll be happy to change back - but the reason I changed them in the first place was to lower the size of the pages (byte wise) and to put slightly less stress on the already stressed servers. It really isn't very significantly smaller, and I can see how it would hamper editing - so i'll change them back - sorry. Fresheneesz 18:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

image licensing

Last thing, I changed the licencing of the image that you wanted me to change. I put it on open licensing so people could edit the image the same as editing a page - without creating a new image page. And its not like that image is a work of art - I could have drawn it myself - but I didn't want to waste my time. Images created for wikipedia should be as open as the pages created for wikipedia - but thats not my call to enforce. Fresheneesz 18:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message about your picutres being "more free", legally that may be true. But I licenced the modification so that anybody can upload a new version of it. I'm not exactly sure how that works, but the point is - people can upload a new version of the picture i put up, while people can't for your picture. If I could have, i would have uploaded a new version directly on that page. But I changed the licencing to one of the licences that you told me i should - and other people still can upload new versions. I did licence it correctly right? Fresheneesz 18:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the page for your picture - both on wikipedia and on wikimedia - there is no link that enables someone to upload a new file. If there is one somewhere, its not in the place I've seen it before.

I'll remember that next time. But I think it would be much better for a clear link to exist that would allow someone to easily upload an updated file - someone who doesn't know the intricacies of wikipedia's uploading mechanism. Fresheneesz 21:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How did you upload an image without clicking on the upload link?? And how does the licensing of the image affect whether you can upload or not? — Omegatron 22:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

- Well.. I didn't.. I created new pages with new files by using the "Upload file" link in the toolbox. But many image pages have an "Upload new version of this file" link that allows you to directly update the file without any doubts. Fresheneesz 02:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Aha! I never saw that link before. Since my images are on Wikimedia Commons, you'd have to go to the Commons description page first, and then you will see that link. — Omegatron 03:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)"

- alright, I actually still don't see that link. For example at [here] theres an "edit this file in an external application" link - but it just allows you to DL something (.. i dunno if its actually the file). The link I was talking about goes directly to an upload page with the file name already put in for you so that you know its replacing the correct file. Fresheneesz 01:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I think you have the link no matter what if you are the original uploader. But try going onto the picture's page without logging on. Fresheneesz 18:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Yea, I was aware. Most of my edits are minor edits (although i don't know whats generally considered minor), but I dechecked the box for automatically marking it now, because I don't think i can consistantly remember to decheck the box myself whenever I write a non-minor edit. Fresheneesz 21:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for fixing all my typos in the

article. I will try to remember not to edit late Friday night. KYN 07:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Why make pages difficult to read with multiple indents??--Light current 02:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Light current (talk • contribs) [reply]

The indentation level indicates when one comment is in reply to another comment. There are different valid indentation styles, but please don't mess with other people's comments like that. See

Wikipedia:Talk page#Formatting, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout

, etc.

I hardly call formatting for ease of reading MESSiNG with other peoples comments. THats a very exaggerated statement.--Light current 02:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~, so we don't have to load up the history page to figure out who wrote it and reply. You should know this stuff by now. — Omegatron 02:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about making things difficult, would you mind checking http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beamforming&diff=next&oldid=26591284 for me? Someone deleted a big block of text I wrote, and replaced it with something that is technically true, and definitely more concise, but (I think) less understandable. (Should I slap {{Template:Technical}} on it? Should I keep *both* explanations?)

Thank you for encouraging us to make things more understandable. I hope I answered your question on Talk:Catenary. --DavidCary 09:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that your version was more understandable, though less encyclopedic language. A mixture of the two would be best. — Omegatron 16:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I was worried that I was turning into the kind of person who insists that the article include my favorite "golden text". The sort of people who run a

against everyone who dares make a change to the article. I would rant against "encyclopedic language", but I've already done that at http://communitywiki.org/PlainTalk and --DavidCary 18:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This klunky has really proved helpful. Can we upload these images on wikipedia and use the code generated by klunky to draw circuits instead of uploading a circuit image. Also, I wanted to know if some free softwares are also uploaded on this site. --Electron Kid 01:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I thought of that and started to implement it here, but then changed my mind. There are a bunch of possibilities for markup-based circuits, but none that really shine. See WikiProject Electronics/Programs and Wikitex — Omegatron 02:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can u tell me how to install or compile the gnuplot? I am unable to do so with my resources. is there any alternative to download the *.exe files from somewhere?--Electron Kid 01:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh! I've been using the one bundled with Maxima, actually. Called wgnuplot.exe. There's probably a standalone somewhere, though. — Omegatron 01:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. It's on sourceforge. Just go here. — Omegatron 01:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Important discussion taking place on talk:electrical engineeringthat should interest all WikiProject electronics members.--Light current 02:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see a comment 'that was a lot of work'. Are you commenting on my work recently (yes it was!), or the fact that I replaced your work (I worried about this a bit).

The most work went into creating Equal loudness contours, Fletcher-munson curves, and Robinson Dadson curves Lindos1 Lindos2 . . . Lindos5, but I've been keen to get these available in scalable vector form. Now I'v done it, there seems to be a problem. Every day, one or two graphs are not loading onto the pages (random?)yet the files are there, and just re-saving the text page without change restores things till the next time. Any ideas why? I've flagged this on the bugs page, but no answers. Maybe .svg files all suffer this problem (I now see they are not common). --Lindosland 01:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I just realised you added your 'alternative version'. I do admire the way you generated your curves, but find that I constantly want to read off values, and the accuracy is only as good as can be estimated from the graph (Ideally I would add a table). Adding the log frequency scale, which your graphs don't have, makes for more accurate reading, and of course vector form means they can be blown up big.

• Wow, no sooner written than I get a reply. I've only been doing Wiki for a few weeks in ernest, but it's taking me over, and forever surprising me! Yes, that's helpful, and I'll try those things (later, it's 1.50am and I must go to bed). I got hooked into writing most of Noise this evening, which was flagged for attention. Amazing how many terms you can Wikify in an article like that and see come up blue!.

Stop trolling. There is no room to debate that

]

Stop assuming bad faith. There's plenty of room for debate on the talk page. Besides, "Avoid" ≠ "Antichrist". — Omegatron 12:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't know when to stop, do you? -- Netoholic @ 21:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? — Omegatron 21:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm a bureaucrat on the Wikimedia Commons project. Your request for adminship is now pending for nearly a month. Our rules state "Nominations usually remain for seven days, for votes and comments. Admin status will be granted by a majority of at least 75% and a minimum of 4 votes". I'm sorry but I just see your request having 3 votes in 3 weeks. So that I am going to consider that your request has been rejected. Maybe you could re-apply in a few months. Thank you. villy ♦✎ 08:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You said "A simple example is the difference between "Black Rat" and "black rat"." and I instantly got it (I think I did anyway). I ran into this on Polar bear when someone capitalized "racoon" claiming some kind of agreement was made somewhere on wikipedia. After verifying it was neither a vandal nor a newbie I was joyous to stop vandal-waching an article someone somewhere seems to be using as a something by periodic vandal tests of varying cleverness (or else it just seems that way like a cloud "looks" like a face). In any case, capitalizing species names makes sense when it distinguishes that name from what is not a proper noun. I still think racoon shouldn't be capitalized. But I edit war as little as possible (cause I'm lazy). WAS 4.250 06:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment says reverted but you didn't [1]? I'm all for reverting, as you may guess. --Pjacobi 09:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was an imperative, not a record of what I did.  :-) "Please revert" not "as I revert". I think it should mostly be reverted, but there's probably some info in his additions that are useful. — Omegatron 14:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dare to have a look at Scalar field theory and talk page? I just have my usual struggle with Reddi. Perhaps I'm getting too sensitive, as I have to admit, that Reddi makes reasonable efforts at NPOV and at least has stopped reverting out the pseudoscience/physics categories. And he gives sources. The USPTO for example. But the extensive treatment of this stuff, as if it were a reasonable alternative to mainstream physics, makes me cry. --Pjacobi 14:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a physicist, but I'll look at it. As I've said before, I think we should happily include pseudoscientific stuff, but also debunk it in the same article. Better to explain why it's wrong than try to minimize its presence. — Omegatron 15:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fine program in theory, but besides needing tireless contributors to oppose the fans, there is a

Hydrino theory. But if we ourselves start refuting the equations, there will be threshold of original research I assume. --Pjacobi 21:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Original research doesn't mean "report only on what peer-reviewed journals have said". I think we're usually under letter b. — Omegatron 17:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was not "putting words in [your] mouth" ... you made the post ... J. D. Redding

Ohhhh... I get it. I was just moving an anon's comment out of the article. The comment can be removed from the talk page for all I care; it's not important. — Omegatron 17:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have done some good work on absorption waveometer, I would value your input on Television interference (radio transmitter interference) if you think that you can add any more to it. I am a HAM, and I have noticed that the EMC section of WP is jolly weak so I choose to add the example of TVI in UHF AM TV systems to WP to improve the EMC section.Cadmium 22:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by absorption waveometer, but I did notice the Television interference articles needed work. I'll put them on my watchlist and maybe get around to them... — Omegatron 00:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The absorption waveometer is a tool used by many HAMS (in the UK it is close to being a legal requirement to have access to one if you are a HAM, as the license states that you may be required to demonstrate that your transmitter's output is 'clean'). Several variations on a common basic circuit exist.

Interesting. I thought you were saying I contributed to an article about it, and I didn't understand, because I haven't.

I took the class to become a ham here in the US, but never took the test. I guess I lost interest halfway through. Knowing Morse code is useful, though. :-) — Omegatron 14:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You can do the following, wire a light bulb in series to a coil and then wire that to the terminals of a variable capacitor, the idea then is that you have a resonant circuit whose frequency can be changed, when it is in a strong RF field of the same frequency as its self then the bulb lights. This is a very insenstive design.

• Plenty of other designs exist, I will provide you with a circuit diagrams.

BTW the Klunky drawing tool is great thanks for putting a link to it on your page.Cadmium 10:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made a modified version, too, that you can download from my page. I think it's better (obviously). — Omegatron 14:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a circuit diagram for a typical homemade unit, I may photograph my own home made unit and then add the photos to explain more about them. To use it connect a voltmeter to the terminals on the left, when the unit is exposed to a RF field (at the right frequency) then a DC voltage will appear at the terminals.

Also sorry for putting such a big diagram into the page, I am not that good at the markup langauge.

Cadmium 10:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. You'll learn as you go. Have you read through

Help:Extended_image_syntax? — Omegatron 14:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I am sorry but I have been a bit of a twit, I saw your user name in the list of editors for balun and somewhere in my mind I mixed that up with absorption waveometer. Please forgive me for being silly.Cadmium 18:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting to hear that you did start on a HAM class, I was not trying to suggest that you did not know what you were talking about. I thought that you wanted to know what the absorption waveometer was and what it is used for. If you have done part of the course, you might already know about TVI. Did you get to that part, I did not do a class. I bought a copy of the course text book and taught myself. The EMC part of the book concentrated on harmonics and excessive field strength at thy neighborough's TV set. Did you do a UK or USA course ?

Also (sorry to be a bind), please could you help me with a circuit diagram. You might need to add more symbols to the software.

Could you do me a favour, I have tried to draw a light dimmer but I can not find the symbol for a SCR or a zenor disoide. I imagine that you having a back ground in electronics would be able to quickly see where the SCR and the zenor should go. Here is my source code

*snipped*

Cadmium 18:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I get it. Yeah I cleaned up balun a little.

There's a Zener diode in the D section of Klunky, but I don't think there's any SCRs. You can just put a diode where you want the SCR to be and then draw in the extra lead later. I almost always end up modifying the images after creating them in Klunky, anyway, to add component labels and such. I take a screenshot and then paste them into the GIMP, where I draw extra things as needed.

There has been discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Electronics/Programs about many different schematic drawing programs, trying to find the perfect fit for the wikipedia. None really works perfectly for our purposes, but maybe you can find one you like better.

By the way, saving schematics and other such diagrams in PNG format is better. You can see how the JPG sort of "bleeds" at the edges of the lines. PNG doesn't do that, and should be smaller file size, too.

Well I didn't know what an absorption waveometer was, either. :-) I took the US ham course, but it was a while ago and I honestly don't remember a lot of the details. — Omegatron 19:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]