Revision as of 18:48, 6 August 2006

Please post new messages to the TOP of my talk page (but below this notice)

Greetings!

Always nice to have a stimulating but civil discussion!!

(People just wont believe I have most of the day and night to discuss (and edit)-- must get out more)!

Earlier talk archived at

• user talk:Light current/Archive#1
• user talk:Light current/archive2
• user talk:Light current/archive3
• user talk:Light current/archive4

Distortion page: Guitar section

Hi Light current,

It appears that you hastily reverted my improvements to the Guitar section of the Distortion page without seeing that the result of your reversion contradicts your stated reason for the reversion. Your stated reason for the reversion is that the page isn't about distortion in electric guitar. Yet your reversion caused the page to revert to its old state, which in fact *has* a section about distortion in the context of guitar amplification. You reverted from an improved section about distortion in guitar amps, to an inferior section about distortion in guitar amps, justifying that action by saying that the page isn't about guitar. Your stated reason for your action contradicts the result of your action.

If, as you claim, the Distortion page really isn't about guitar, then you ought to delete the existing guitar section, rather than reverting from my version of the guitar section to the previous, inferior version of the guitar section. I don't know why you didn't do that. It appears that you hastily reverted the page and didn't look at the result to notice that the result of your action is a guitar section appearing in the page, a result which directly contradicts your stated reason for reverting the page.

The distortion page should either have my improved version of the previously existing guitar amp distortion section, or should have the previous version of the guitar amp distorition section removed, replaced by a link to the other page such as Effects unit or Electric guitar or Instrument amplifier. As it stands, your reversion has decreased the quality of the information at the Misplaced Pages page. MichaelSHoffman 18:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph Electronics

You raise some interesting points. I think Ill move this discussion to the Talk:electronics page so that others can have some input. 8-|

BJT

Moved to talk:Bipolar junction transistor for wider audience.

My Edits

I understand why the clamper page was cleared, but the reason you gave (nonsense) was irrational. Check here. WalterWalrus3 05:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How can completely clearing a page and replacing it with something irrrelevant be seen as anything other than vandalism? Judging by the amount of time you have been here, you should know better! Also see WP:POINT 8-(--Light current 09:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved to talk:DJ big band

What Is the Basic Idea behind a Negative Impedance Converter (NIC)?

Hello Light current,

I would like to focus your attention again on one of the most interesting circuit phenomenon - Negative resistance - and on its famous circuit implementation - Negative impedance converter. IMO, both the phenomenon and the circuit have never explained (if you have ever met good explanations about this subject, please let me know!) I have been trying to reveal the secret of this "mystic" circuit from many years. Now, I have the feeling that I have managed to grasp the basic idea behind it; so, I would like to share my penetration with Misplaced Pages audience.

I have already created the first circuit stories about dynamic and negative resistance. Now, I am developing two pages about NIC with voltage inversion and NIC with current inversion. I have the idea to co-ordinate this work with according Misplaced Pages pages. Following the Misplaced Pages conventions, I have first exposed my suggestion on Talk:Negative impedance converter and Talk:Negative resistance. I would be glad, if you and other experienced Wikipedians who love exotic circuits join this discussion.

I have also tried to resume the discussion about Current source and the dual Voltage source − see Talk:Current_source#New_structure where I have suggested to rearrange the structure of these pages. As I can see, you have participated very actively in the creating of the pages; so, I may expect that you will react to my suggestion. Circuit-fantasist 18:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Op-Amp Common Mode Rejection

Why did you eliminate the piece on common mode rejection from the discussion of ideal and real-world op amps? Your edit summary says its a simplification of language, but it actually eliminates discussion of a standard parameter of operational amplifiers. Do you think it's unimportant? (It certainly is an issue in instrumentation amplifiers.) Did you think it's incorrect? (I left this message in the discussion section but I thought I might try to reach you this way, too.) Anoneditor 21:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I replied on article talk.

A favor to ask

I've been away from home for a while and haven't really been editing much... well, anyways there is a particularly un-civil editor I might have disgruntled. Just wondering if you could add my user page to your watchlist and check for possible vandalism while I'm on vacation. Thanks — ßottesiηi 14:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User-page Vandalism

I just noticed your vandalism of my user page on June 5, 2006 and have reverted. Please don't do that again. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes Robert, it does appear that I made these changes. Yet I dont remember - must have been under the influence at the height of our discussions %-). Apologies it should not have happened.--Light current 12:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad things are better now. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it, but someone else was trying my patience when I noticed. Go ahead and erase this section if you want. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you are quite correct to tell me off. I shouldnt have done it. It was childish of me! 8-(--Light current 02:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Martin bass

Speaking of "Exclusionism" (as referenced on your user page), I stopped in here after a while away and noticed that you had added an extensive section on the EB 18 electric bass to the C.F. Martin & Company page. Kudos on your hard work and extensive research, but I feel that most of this material (including photos) should be excluded from the article. Far too much information on what was essentially a short-lived and unsuccessful experiment by Martin. To someone unfamiliar with musical instruments, it would appear from reading the article that Martin's primary product was that bass, with the guitars a distant second, when of course the opposite is true.

I realize I am not being bold, but I don't like wholesale eliminating that much of someone's hard work without fair warning. I would suggest either spinning that info off to another article or simply returning it to your userspace until (if) the Martin article has so much detail about their acoustics that adding the info about the bass would not "unbalance" the article.

Thanks for listening. Soundguy99 02:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I actually have the matching guitar. Not a big fan of it - the neck is too thick - but it looks fun and I have a weakness for oddball orphaned guitars.

I dont agree that its extensive. Its a short para with the details and 4 photos. I dont agree it makes the bass look primary. The bass is at the bottom of the page. What the page needs is more on other Martin guitars, not removal of worthwhile content. 8-|--Light current 03:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert in decibel entry

This concerns your revert of chances in the decibel entry please consider the following. You seem to think that equal distances on a decibel scale are equal in sensations and that this is equivalent to Stevens' power law. There are two problems here.

1. Data fit to power forms are better than to a logarithmic scale (Steven, 1957; and myriad of susequent research). Work in mathematical psychology and subsequent testing has found substantial support for the power law (e.g., Steingrimsson & Luce, 2006).

2. Equal distances on a logarithmic scale are not equal on a power scale. Assuming the power law ${\displaystyle \psi (I)=kI^{a}}$, where ${\displaystyle \psi }$ is a function capturing sensation, ${\displaystyle I}$ is physical intensity and ${\displaystyle k,a}$ are constants. If these are converted to decibels, we have ${\displaystyle 10\log(\psi (I))=10(\log k+a\log I)}$. Now, if we have two intensities, ${\displaystyle I}$ and ${\displaystyle I'}$, then their difference in decibels (assuming the power law) is

${\displaystyle 10\log(\psi (I))-10\log(\psi (I))=10(logk+a\log I)-10(logk+a\log I')}$

With a little algebra and dividing by 10, we get

${\displaystyle \log(\psi (I))-\log(\psi (I))=a\log I'-a\log I=a\log({\frac {I'}{I}})}$

which is an entity that is not constant. Hence, equal distance on a decibel scale are not equal in power and hence not equivalent to Stevens' power law. Equal distances on a decibel scale are equal distences on a logarithm scale, which is obvious as decibels are a logarithmic scale.

I hope this clarifies the issue. (Best regards, Rutuag)

References

• Steingrimsson, R., & Luce, R. D. (2006). Empirical evaluation of a model of global psychophysical judgments: III. A form for the psychophysical function and intensity filtering. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50, 15—29.

• Stevens, S. S. (1957). On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review 64(3):153—181. PMID 13441853.

Leave out the adverts

The article is about bass amplification, and the specific subsection is about amplifying the upright bass. Including the names of manufacturers seems reasonable. I believe an article about sports cars, specifically Italian sports cars would list the names Lambourghini, Ferrari, etc. There is even more justification in the bass amplification/upright bass preamp example, because whereas Lambourghini and Ferrari are well-known names, even to those outside the field of sports cars, the names of manufacturers of impedance-matching preamplifiers are probably unknown to most non-upright bassists.NatMor 02:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Links to the manufacturers are at the bottom of the page. I believe this is the acceptable place to put them, not in the body of the article.8-|--Light current 02:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy quote:

Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Misplaced Pages does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability.

Another concern with listing three manufacturers in the body of the text as I did, is that pretty soon, someone will add another 3, and then another editor will add another 5, and then there will be a big list of manufacturers (just like the list of bass players in the bass guitar article). As well, people will start adding in bogus/unverifiable advert claims thrown in as well ("the XYZ preamplifier is widely acknowledged to be the best professional-level bass preamplifier, as it gives the truest, best tone.."). I will try to do a list at the end...Thanks for your comments and ideas. By the way, I think the bass amplification article is coming along well. One technical concern, though; when I search for "bass instrument amplification," Misplaced Pages tells me that it doesn't exist, so I always have to get to it from the "bass guitar" article page.NatMor 14:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree with your predictions. Yes I think you are doing a good job on that page -- so I'll leave it to you for now! When you search, remember to use the proper capitalisation like Bass instrument amplification 8-)--Light current 15:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Article tags inappropriate in user space

I deleted the tag you inappropriately put on my User talk page. Causing a user talk page to be placed into an article category is inappropriate use of the category. Whether and when to archive is up to the individual user. Also, if you have anything to say to me, please place it at the bottom of my page per normal procedure. Thank you. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Robert, I remeber now putting a tag on your user page. I was not aware that the toolong tag was not appropriate for user talk pages. Some one did it to my page not long ago so it seemed to be accepted practice. I aplogise for putting the actual post at the top of the page insted of the bottom. I do it the the other way round!! I dont know what you mean by catagorisation! 8-)--Light current 21:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Amplifying double bass

While double bass players amplifying their instrument are aiming at producing a wide range of tonal qualities with their amplification systems, these can be grouped into two categories for the sake of simplicity. Double bass players playing in traditional blues, jazz, folk, and bluegrass are often seeking a "natural" sound that replicates the woody, acoustic sound of the unamplified instrument. In some other settings, such as some subgenres of 1950s blues, rockabilly, punk/psychobilly, and jazz-rock, double bass players may be seeking a louder "amplified tone" that emphasizes the lower fundamentals and allows the bass to be heard under a loud band........

Hi, this paragraph made you say "whaaat?" in your edit. The natural sound tries to replicate the sound/tone colour/resonance of the instrument playing in a room -- except it is louder. The "amplified tone" sounds like a cross between an upright bass and an electric bass, since the higher harmonics are filtered out and the bass frequencies are boosted. The resulting tone sounds far more powerful than the "natural sound." Too POV? The same trend can be seen in the other acoustic instruments, such as amplified violinNatMor 13:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. It was an unfocused para drifting between styles of music, players etc. We just need some facts about how you amp the DB! 8-)--Light current 13:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It could have been worse... there could have been the names of 50 bass players spread throughout the paragraph (with lots of statements like "well known as the greatest bass player" and "the most famous two-handed tapping guru in the world"! (like the bass guitar article used to have) : )NatMor 17:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Speakers are not fast or slow

Hi Lightcurrent, for bass speakers if you are comparing an 8 inch low-frequency driver to a 15 inch low-frequency driver, the 8" LF drivers can respond to transient attacks much faster than a 15". The speaker and mixer company Mackie states that "Two 12-inch woofers provide greater air movement than a single 18" woofer but with greater speed, control and better attack." `NatMor 04:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes but it can only be the frequency response of the smaller speakers being more extended. I think they are using loose terminology to try to sound clever. Speakers have a frequency response (not a 'speed') 8-)--Light current 05:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia discussion on speakers says that "...marketing claims that a bass driver is ‘fast’ or 'quick-responding' are unfounded. Speaker manufacturers often claim that small bass drivers are ‘faster’, or that they have a quicker 'transient response. While a light cone is easier to accelerate, the only result is that light cone can reproduce higher frequencies. Given that a driver can generate a given frequency, its ability to generate higher frequencies (its bandwidth) has little to do with the rate at which a low frequency tone builds up or decays. Provided that the driver is operating at reasonably low ‘Q factor’ (a feature of the driver plus its enclosure) then its contribution to the sluggishness of bass response is likely to be negligible. This is less true of bass reflex designs, though they remain popular simply because it is rare to find a room in which their defects are not swamped by resonant modes...... Interesting...it seems I have been duped by marketing claims from manufacturers websites! (note that I recently copyedited this paragraph a bit to add the term "marketing claims" and "quick-responding)...Thanks for the responseNatMor 16:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is where we have to be careful about which references we use! In fact I would always take manufacturers claims with a large spoonful of salt! 8-)--Light current 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Links in Valve Sound article

I noticed you had been tinkering with links to directly heated valve and indirectly heated valve. As far as I know, there are no articles on either subject. I'm new at contributing to Misplaced Pages, and I would like to understand the strategy behind these "links". Gerry Ashton 15:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont 'tinker'. I may try to improve. In this case I was seeing if there were any links to directly heated and indirectly heated. THere arent. However the fact that these are now red links will encourage others maybe to create articles on these subjects or change the links so they point to a more relevant page like valve. In fact it may be better for thes two terms to be pinked directly to vacuum tubes Thus:

• directly heated
• indirectly heated

Does this shed any light? --Light current 15:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think I understand. I've read that links to a section within a different article do not work. That's a pity; sometimes it would be nice to link to a section of a different article. But then, someone would just come along and change the headings. Oh well. Thanks for taking the time to explain. (BTW, I didn't intend any negative connotation when I wrote "tinker".) Gerry Ashton 16:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Youre welcome 8-)--Light current 16:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Coin Shrinking

I never did see the email you sent - please try again at bert.hickman@aquila.net Bert 02:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Its OK Bert. You got it and replied (work coil design) 8-) I omitted to mention my WP user name. Anyway since its not strictly WP subject matter, Ill talk to you by email and not here about that. However, the subject of 'magnetoforming' probably has other applications and if it does may be worth a page on WP> 8-)--Light current 07:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

clarification

Please visit Talk:Amplitude_modulation#Types Of AM and clarify them. --Electron Kid 03:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Im not familiar with this terminology!--Light current 03:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Packistani A-bomb

I have put this article uInsert non-formatted text herep at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Packistani A-bomb. Your opinion on this matter would be appreciated. --DV8 2XL 01:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Internet talk abbreviations

Following our conversation about internet slang/abbreviations, I saw that you recently created Internet talk abbreviations. I just thought I should remind you of WP:POINT. I'm not saying you are in violation at all, just don't let your opinion on the matter lead you to do anything disruptive. It's already been suggested that your article be merged into List of Internet slang, so you may want to open something of a straw poll on the matter. Timrem 04:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please get a few more edits under your belt before quoting the rule book at anyone!

Amplifier Schematic symbol

I debate the validity of the picture I took the time to create. with this: a generic Amp symbol, http://www.kpsec.freeuk.com/symbol.htm and this http://www.ziplink.net/~teachcte/symb1.html see the OP-Amp symbol. Keep in mind I created that from memory from a tech-school for my job (Satellite communications, wideband, and telemetry systems, USAF) from 3 years ago. Yes it isen't detailed, however the article Amplifiers is devoid of any pictures which I feel is reason to spice the article up. The article probably recieves so much criticism because it lacks heart and needs imagry to illistrate and give it a more entertaining value. In my personal opinion all electronic devices should have schematic symbols, I make a page specific for schematic symbols if it doesent exist and place in the see also "Schematic Symbols", That may be better. M Jurrens 0521 GMT 22 MAY 06.

The article actually doesnt need a diagram becuase its about the concept of amplifiers in general. if you look at some of the main pages referred to you will see lots of diags there. 8-)

c740uz

Hi - took me a while to work out what hdgs stood for :-). Thanks for the tidy up--A Y Arktos\ 01:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

UR very welcome!--Light current 01:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Arc converter

But "splattering the r.f. spectrum with interference," was so much more colorful (me pouts) :) --DV8 2XL 03:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes..but not quite the right tone for a pedia! 8-)

Cleanup tag

Thank you for helping to identify Misplaced Pages articles for cleanup! In case you didn't know, it's not recommended to use subst: with the cleanup tag. Leaving the actual template in place makes it easier to automatically refile the page later, and allows changes to the template to show up on all tagged pages. Thanks again, Beland 20:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear! I thought I was doing the right thing here, having been told off for not doing it with other tags! (see below) 8-( --Light current 20:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Reminder + Suggestion

Important: This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.

Very interesting layout of your talk page you have here. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 03:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You no likee??--Light current 00:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jacobsladder2crop.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jacobsladder2crop.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 11:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I saw that you made some positive and useful edits to my bio, thanks. One thing that has bugged me for a long time is that "few means" comment... you left it in, now attributing it (loosely) to me, but I would never say such a thing.--Jimbo Wales 20:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If you did not say it, it shall be removed!--Light current 20:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bach works for piano and bass (Well tempered clavier and others)

I am not aware of any transcriptions for bass and piano for that particular set of etudes. If you are interested in Bach, I would recommend the unaccompanied cello suites (it's quite a challenge, however). — ßottesiηi 19:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks. I think I'll have to syphon off the LH from the piano versions. I am of course talking about the Loussier trio stuff! 8-)--Light current 19:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that makes a little more sense now. Still, I don't know where you could find a transcription. — ßottesiηi 19:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Slimey face tests

• 8-| neutral

• 8-? quizzical

• 8-o surprised (or wearing goggles and respirator)

• 8-) satisfied/happy

• 8-)) very happy/laughing

• 8-( unhappy

• 8-(( very unhappy

• 9-) joking (one eye winking)

• 9-| sarcasm?

• $:-( angry/frowning

• $$:-(£) really angry

• %-) only half awake/drunk/tipsy/

• |-) blind drunk

• |-| asleep

Wiki Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Light current, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Misplaced Pages documentation, there's also Misplaced Pages:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Ragib 06:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)