Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Light current (talk | contribs) at 22:33, 1 April 2006 (put flotsam wher it belongs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I've used the Misplaced Pages often - this week I've decided to write some contributions. It seems that filling in articles for red links is a good place to start. --Wtshymanski 02:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And I've been Wiki-ing for one year! --Wtshymanski 21:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Bill,

Thanks for the help. It's really a boost to have someone else edit articles I'm working on -- in a positive direction.

I'm fascinated by the electric power industry. One thing I'd like to see, and don't know enough to write, is an explanation of how grids are controlled, how they go unstable, how they are made stable, and so on. Could you do that, or can you point me at good reading material that would make it possible for me to do that?

Iain McClatchie 22:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

2000A Thyristors

WOW! Thats a nice bunch of thyristors you've got there mate! What are you using them for?

Ratings for commercial generators

Hi! It sounds like you might have worked the power industry, so I had a quick question: I toured a local coal fired plant here in the DC area. They had three generators, two were operational, one was offline at the time. Each was a 200 MW unit, surprisingly small, IMHO. Anyway, I think the output voltage at the generator terminals was something like 14 kV, but I can't remember, I could be wrong. If it is 14 kV, then the current would be around 14200 AMPS! That seems like a lot of current. If it is correct, the wire in the windings would have to be around 3 inches or so. Do I have my numbers wrong? The voltage couldn't be much more, even if it was double, that's still some very thick wire!! What do the windings look like in that size generator?? Can't be many turns... Madhu 19:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds about right - generators of that size are usually wound for a medium voltage (around 15 kV up to about 30 kV), and so the currents are very high. The machines are large so there's lots of room for very heavy copper windings; often these machines are cooled by water coils in the stator or by circulating hydrogen gas in the generator enclosure. The windings are made of something called "Roebel bars", which is a rectangular section of copper with individual strands insulated from each other (for eddy currents), and the whole covered with insulation rated for the terminal voltage of the machine. Large generators don't need many turns on each pole because the poles are large; there's a lot of flux linked and so each turn produces more voltage - there could be only 3-4 bars in each slot for a 15-kV class machine. The company ABB developed a concept called "Powerformer" in which high-voltage cable was used to make the windings; this allowed them to build a generator that directly produces transmission voltage (115,000 V or higher) but so far they've only built a few units. Utiltities are very cautious and the technology is still very new. 200 MW is not the largest rating in the world but is still pretty big - in Manitoba where I live, the utility doesn't have any single generator as large as 200 MW in a total installed capacity of nearly 5000 MW. Utilities often would prefer to have 3 -200 MW units instead of one 600 for reliability reasons. --Wtshymanski 15:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

List of electrical engineers

Hi. would you take a look at the most recent addition of Kyle McGhee on this list and let me know what you think. It looks like BS to me but I wanted to get another opinion before rv. Thanks, hydnjo talk 00:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, that was nonsense. I wonder how fast Misplaced Pages could grow without vandalism? --Wtshymanski 17:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

OK thanks, he's gone. Is this list on your watchlist just in case, then one of us should catch another dubious entry.

Without vandalism! All work and no play makes Jack a ....  ;-) hydnjo talk 19:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I only have about 385 pages on my watch list - but this one is one of them.I looked at the other edits from this IP address and couldn't tell if they were bad, so I left them alone. Maybe Misplaced Pages needs a "Least watched page" list? --Wtshymanski 21:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Re your edit earlier today: Volta & Faraday predate electrical engineering as we define it today, and thus are usually thought of as scientists -- but I'd argue that they were laying important groundwork for our profession. I'm not convinced that they don't belong on this list; let's get a discussion going on the article's talk page. Engineer Bob 06:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

subheterodyne mixer

A good example can be found at http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5461426.html
In particular the 11 paragraph of the DETAILED DESCRIPTION section.

The desired output signal is at 10.74 MHz (see 9 paragraph).

The 11 paragraph describes two techniques: "... using a lowpass FIR digital filter and a 10.84 MHz oscillator to carry out a superheterodyne ... rather than the bandpass FIR digital filter and the 10.64 MHz oscillator to carry out the subheterodyne ...".

Bob K 00:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi Wtshymanski,

We are having some difficulties over at Talk:Electrical engineering over which version of the article should be adopted. Essentially the question is whether we stick with an existing version that discusses electronics engineering as a subfield of electrical engineering (while acknowledging they can be treated as being distinct) or adopt another version that limits discussion about electronics engineering. I am hoping with enough votes we can quickly end the debate and move forward in the right direction.

Thanks.

Cedars 06:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Good guidelines :-)

Hi, I started the wikiproject about electronics and I'm working on the main page of the project. I have seen on your homepage some interesting guidelines:

What I want to see in a technology article

I like *depth* in an article.

• What is it?
• Who uses it?
• How does it work?
• Where did it come from? When?
• Who made the first one? When?
• Who were the rivals in the development phase?
• What did we use for that job before it was invented?
• How was it developed?
• How big/small/powerful/costly is it?
• What is/was the social effect of it?
• How does/did it affect the environment?
• What seems likely to succeed it?

if you don't mind I'd like to add them on the project's page: they could be an interesting starting point for several users. Is it ok?? Alessio Damato 13:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Well these things seem a bit obvious really and wont apply to all articles but only new devices and inventions I think. But it wont do any harm I suppose for these things to be included if possible--Light current 03:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Reversion of Electrical engineering

Could you outline your reasons for wanting to retain the image of some people sitting infront of a black board. Can you say what information it provides to the readers? Can you justify its retention on this already oversized page?--Light current 19:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Radio propagation

Not by conduction? what? ... this is from a radio book .... I'll try to refind it. BUT .... Radio propagation is made by electrical conduction through a transmission medium. On the earth, electrical conduction in a media. In space, it is a vacuum. Sincerely, JDR

Sorry, don't think so. When the Mars rovers transmit back to Earth, there's no stream of electrically charged particles travelling through vacuum - it's the naked electromagnetic wave that does the propagating. Check your references very closely as this statement is at variance from what I was taught. --Wtshymanski 15:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Read free space for now. I'll get the reference later. JDR 15:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Nothing in that article should be read to imply that EM waves propagate by electrical conduction. Rather, the reverse: the propagation of EM waves in a vacuum is modeled by assuming that no matter (including electrons) is required for propagation of the wave. In most circumstances, this approximation is more than accurate enough, because the miniscule amounts of matter in a good vacuum have no significant effect on EM wave propagation. Even air at atmospheric pressure has little effect on the propagation of radio waves.--Srleffler 23:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah but the question is, do you need displacement current to flow in the ether for radio transmission to exist? If so, JDR may be right!--Light current 03:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Displacement current is not conduction. --Wtshymanski 03:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Not strictly speaking no. But it causes a magnetic field does it not? So how is it different from conduction in this argument?--Light current 03:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Displacement current is not conduction. The erroneous statement in the article said that radio propagation relied on conduction. This is not correct. --Wtshymanski 03:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

OK only trying to make converstation--Light current 03:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Leakage inductance picture request

OK, let me see what I can produce. It may take a little while, though. Regards, BillC 19:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said, it took a while...  :-) But there's now an image at leakage inductance. Was this the sort of thing you had in mind? I found it easier to draw the contours of constant magnetic vector potential rather than broad lines representing flux as I had done in the first drawing. --BillC 16:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit to add: I think we could do with an equivalent circuit diagram on that article now. Something to show the series leakage reactance in both primary and secondary circuits. Do you have access to a package that draws circuits? --BillC 19:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Winnipeg Folk Festival

I notice you did an edit on the above. I hope someone takes this article on and expands it as my memories of the Festival are so much more. (I worked security there on a volunteer basis for a few years), Know anyone with some in depth insight? Just hoping... (Stormbay 18:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

Edits to Transformer- pleas get your facts right before attempting to edit this page

As you are obviously unaware of analogies please refer to Dynamical Analogies by H.F Olson (pub Van Nostrand) regarding suitable analogies for transformers before reverting my gearbox inclusion again.

An analogy is only useful if it helps explain something - I usually find mechanical analogies for electrical phenomenona to be so strained that it's better just to explain the physics. The gearbox analogy I think would only baffle someone not conditioned to think in mechanical duals for every electrical phenomenon. It's weak because you must explain why so many mechanical variables such as torque, speed, etc. are like electrical quantities...might as well just explain the --Wtshymanski 22:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, please do not refer to non rotation as an essential prerequisite for transformers. If you think all transformers are static, you dont understand transformers. Quote from page:

Rotating transformers are designed so that one winding turns while the other remains stationary. A common use was the video head system as used in VHS and Beta video tape players. These can pass power or radio signals from a stationary mounting to a rotating mechanism, or radar antenna. Please use your eyes! --Light current 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

IEEE Std 100 defines a transformer as a "static" device which is the very word I had in this article several months ago. If it's good enough for IEEE, it's good enough for me. If rotation is essential to the energy transfer, then the device is *not* a transformer and must be some kind of motor or generator. Look at the design of the coupling transformer you refer to - I haven't dismantled my old VCR (yet) but you will find that the design of the coupling very carefully *cancels* the effect of the rotation - else all the video signals would be modulated by the frequency of the mechanical rotation. I'm also aware of synchro transformers and self-regulating constant-current transformers, both of which have moving coils but the motion of the coils is *not* used to transfer energy from primary to secondary circuit. It would be very nice when repeating the reverts to consider that your fellow editors just *may* know what they are talking about after all. I see you've backed off on your statements about stranded windings and losses due to leakage flux - by the time you finish with this article you will have gotten quite a good education on transformers. You really must book a tour through a transformer manufacturing plant some time - preferably one that makes transformers bigger than you can lift. --Wtshymanski 22:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I didnt say rotation was essential to the operation of a transformer. If the word 'static' is used in the definition (lead para) it gives the impression that rotating transformers do not exist, (which they obviously do). That is why I removed the reference to no moving parts. Thats all!

With regard to stranded wire usage, you will recall that months ago, the article was trumpeting the fact that Litz wire is used in HV power transformers and no one could come up with a reference to say that it was. In the light of this lack of evidence, I recently removed the mention of litz wire. Now, if you have evidence that Litz wire is used in HV transformers, lets see it and I will be happy to see the statement reinserted in the article. I think you will agree that stranded conductor is not necessarily Litz wire (I believe Litz has round conductors for a start).

I hope the above explains my actions and apologise for any offence I may have caused you. --Light current 23:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Pleas remind me about losses due to leakage flux. I dont recall the discussion.--Light current 23:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

List of obsolete technologies

Hi I had completely forgotten such things as gas lighting and town gas when writing that article, (Bessemer wasn't mentioned as I had no knowledge of the processes). Good, helpful additions - thanks! Eddie.willers 20:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Oakbank

Just thought I'd let you know that there is a special template for adding coordinates to articles. I changed your coords to the template in this change. Tnikkel 01:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Azad Hall

I removed your speedy deletion tag from Azad Hall as "non-notable" by itself is not a speedy criterion. Please read WP:CSD. Most administrators will apply the criteria fairly strictly. Thanks. (BTW, that article turned out to be a copyright violation.) howcheng {chat} 00:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but...Unremarkable people or groups. An article about a real person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. from WP:CSD.--Wtshymanski 00:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a dormitory, thus a building, and thus not speediable. Not to worry, though; as you do more and more of these, you'll figure out when they can be applied. howcheng {chat} 07:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello from the Illiterati!

Hello, and welcome to the illiterati! :-) Dontcha hate it when you go back to something you wrote (and thought complete) years ago and find a blatant typo? And that good old typesetting rule certainly applies: "The bigger the type, the more likely the typo!" I once did a complete presentation (from overhead transparencies, 'way pre-Powerpoint) and every instance of the word "bandwith" was miss-spelled on every one of my slides. I've since learned how to spell that word, but there are still some where I routinely screw them up. I'm now working on "supercede", err, "supersede". :-)

Ahh well!

Back to Misplaced Pages'ing...

Atlant 19:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Page name for temperature articles

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 22:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not motivated to enter this debate - I have no authoritative opinion. --Wtshymanski 18:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Electrical and electronics engineering redirect

Hi Wtshymanski,

There is a discussion on Talk:Electrical and electronics engineering on whether the article should be redirected to the electrical engineering article. Light current has identified a lack of consensus as a reason against the redirect, your input on the issue would therefore be very much appreciated.

Thanks for your time.

Cedars 23:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Offtopic Electrical and Thanks

Hey Wtshymanski,

Thanks for your work on HVDC and other electrical topics, fantastic set of articles to read here, and for perservering through items such as movable transformers that are not generators and motors! I've really enjoyed reading them, and noticed your name (among others) in the edit logs.

Quick question. Was watching this video http://youtube.com/watch?v=wSLutQFf8yk and curious if you might have some background on the type of discharge going on? Given the size of the individuals in the foreground it is a nice long sustained arc.

Bitterness

Bill, why are you bitter as it says on your user page?--Light current 02:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

An opportunity in Wikifiction?

You should probably write a Wiki article about Wikifiction. Thanks to the amplification factor provided by Google and the zillion Wiki-clone sites, it's now getting very hard to find confirmation of certain "facts" on the Internet; instead, you get seven billion copies of the same Wiki text.

(And "Thanks!" for the Wiki slogans!)

Atlant 13:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikifiction has been pre-empted by those seeking to publish collabrative fiction on the Web. It's really getting frustrating to try and research some topics on the Web when I find the first page pops up copies of my own article. --Wtshymanski 18:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Overloads

Bill, I saw where you put "crude temperature compensation for electric motors" in the relay article. Could you supply an example? I've seen klixons (a bi-metal domed disk) mounted in with the windings of the motor. Should the temperature of the windings climb above a pre-set limit, the klixon snaps to open a set of NC contacts in series to the overloads and removes power to the motor starter coil. A klixon wouldn't compensate for ambiant temperature. Almost all klixons are automatic. They reset when the motor temperature drops below the pre-set level. I have seen manual reset ones. Wm Seán Glen in Tacoma Seán 00:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

An overload relay is different - a Klixon or thermistor directly measures stator temperature, an overload relay approximates the heating effect on the stator by heating the relay internal mechanism (solder pot or bimetal strip). Overload heater tables such as those published by Allen Bradley state that if the motor is known to be in a higher ambient than the starter, a different overload heater is chosen. --Wtshymanski 18:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

vga needs more wires than 9?!

and what would those wires be? i thought it just had h sync v sync red green blue and ground. that only makes 6! Plugwash 17:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, yes - many more wires. R,G,B each have their own grounds. There's a separate ground for synch. There's three or four bits of monitor ID, but later monitors have an SCI-type serial communication interface. If there was ever a VGA monitor and card built with only 9 pins, I'd like to see a reference for it. Google "VGA pinout" and you'll come up with lots of pinout diagrams, none of which show VGA associated with a 9-pin connector. --Wtshymanski 17:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Transformer as FAC?

Transformer isn't a Featured Article (and I agree with you, it isn't ready for that). It would have to go through peer review and then FA candidacy. However, Image:Transformer3d col3.svg will be a featured picture of the day on the front page that day, and will contain a small into section taking the reader straight to the Transformer article. The plan for next month's front page Featured Pictures is at Misplaced Pages:Picture_of_the_day/April_2006. Apologies if I misled. --BillC 19:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Diagram for Generator

Per your request on Talk:Transformer, I'll get onto the fundamental diagram as soon as I get the opportunity. In the meantime, perhaps you might be able to provide a link to an image or two on the internet that shows the particular concept you had in mind. Thanks! --BillC 13:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Branchlists considered harmful

Please stop editing games. Please stop taunting comments such as your last on transformer. I find it objectionable when you make provoking statements like Thats 2 a piece-- wanna go for 3?. If you want to pick fights, go down to your local bar and leave serious editors alone.

Im not sure of what you are referring to as my taunting comment on transformer. Could you be more precise? You are the instigator and 'agent provacteur' in these so called games - not me. Look at the edit histories! you are the one who seems to want a fight. Unfortunately, I am a poor physical specimen unable to engage in actual fisticuffs. I just want to edit peacefully. If you want to stop my reversions. Stop yours. Simple!--Light current 22:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Branchlists are a bad idea. They are difficult to maintain since they require editing a template by hand. The branchlists I have seen have been of questionable relevancy to the articles on whose page they appear. Branchlists are ugly - they fill up space at the top of the article that is better used to convey useful information, not questionably-chosen "see also" topics. Branchlists are redundant, we already have categories which are *already* automatically maintained. Branchlists are redundant because relevant links can go in the body of the article, or in the "see also" section of the article where the user expects to find them. Branchlists are not well conceived as seen by the recent fiasco requiring wholesale renaming. If the idea had been discussed properly before bulling its way into the Misplaced Pages, perhaps so very many test edits would not have to be undone. If the proponents had listened to the objections, the idea would have been quite likely smothered as it should have been.

You are entitled to your opinion on branchlists but I fear you may be addressing the wrong person here. Its not my idea although I think its worth giving a try.--Light current 22:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I wish you'd spend your Misplaced Pages time constructively researching, editing and adding content instead of building these gratuitious monuments to ego. I see from your talk page that it's your history to be truculent and confrontational - this is inefficient as it wastes everyone's time.

Ahh... 'Truculent'. Thats a good juicy word. I must look it up. If it applies I might add it to my page. Confrontational when necessary -yes! One must tackle the issues face on! People who cannot defend their ideas cannot expect to be listened to. As to your wish:

I wish you'd spend your Misplaced Pages time constructively researching, editing and adding content

Please refer to my edit count and history and compare with your own. Ever heard of people in glass houses?--Light current 22:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen that the last month's worth of editing on at least one article I've looked at today consisted soley of twiddling with "branchlists" - the idea has been spread to too many pages without thinking it out - a tremendous waste of time and energy. I've read your explantion of branchlists and like many others I disagree that they are a net benefit to the Misplaced Pages. Surely the fact that so many people are objecting to your innovation gives you pause to think that maybe there might be something wrong with the idea? --Wtshymanski 21:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, if you took the time to look at the edit histories, you would see that I am not the instigator (just a supporter) of the branchlist idea. I gather that you are not too keen yourself! Please try to establish the facts before ranting on in future. THanks!--Light current 22:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)