Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Draicone (talk | contribs) at 22:59, 4 July 2007 (MD5's linkspam). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hi, please feel free to add stuff to this page, but make sure you sign it properly!

Welcome

Welcome to Wikiproject Electronics. We all hope you will enjoy editing with us. Please refer to the project page for lists of open tasks or feel free to add some new ones.--Light current 00:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Raised cosine

That looks like an excellent contribution to me! I know its quite technical but it probably needs to be so. I will defer opinion on complexity until we've a few more comments. But well done!.--Light current 02:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The raised cosine filter is listed on the linear analog filter template, but it is a linear DIGITAL filter. This should be fixed. PAR 21:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Would probably make more sense to put feedback on articles on the relevant talk page rather than here, so that everyone can see it. See my response at Talk:Raised-cosine filter. Oli Filth 22:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I was wondering how you made the plot of the different rolloff values of the filter? I've been using rcosine and then freqz() to plot the frequency response, but of course for the nyquist pulse it is less than ideal. I have to include a plot similiar to this in a report I'm writing for GMSK vs. M-QAM. Cheers!

At the time, I didn't have the Signal Processing toolbox, so I didn't have rcosine() or freqz(), so I plotted the graphs "manually", by using the equations as in the article. By Nyquist pulse, do you mean the plot for ${\displaystyle \beta =1}$? I think I faked that one. Oli Filth 20:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi / TVI

Hi, Interesting to hear that you have an interest in comms, would you be interested in joining in with some pages on radio equipment and Television interference ?Cadmium 17:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, I just read the message you left to me. Thanks. I just realized that not everybody is entitled to edit the articles. If everybody does it, the the articles will become very messy. Those awful behaviors were really not my intention. Thank you for your message! I just moved my comments about Wiener process to its talk page. I hope that somebody can respond to my comments. I am not an experienced user, do you think that is ok? I hope that this time I am right. Jackzhp(talk) 2006.08.28

See my reply at User talk:Jackzhp. Oli Filth 09:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:OFDM receiver ideal.png

Thanks for uploading Image:OFDM receiver ideal.png. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 15:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject_Telecommunications

Hi! You have made many good contributions in the area of telecommunications. Why not join the WikiProject Telecommunications? Mange01 00:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your removal about Full Service Broadband

Hi! The Full Service Broadband text under broadband article is just a short summary. My intention is to describe an "overview" what Full Service Broadband is with e.g. technical graphs etc. but cannot do it for the moment since I’m not 100% finished.

Yes it might sound like a marketing spiel, but that’s not the intention. When describing the benefits of Triple Play, VoD, IMS, etc. is that marketing spiel!

Apologies if it really wasn't a spamming attempt, but vapid buzzword phrases such as "triple play paradigm", "adding mobility and extending connectivity" and "Network-to-Network Interfaces ensure interoperability with partners such as other operators and enterprises" read exactly like marketing speak, and are completely non-descriptive and uninformative.

If you are writing an article, please make it more informative and to-the-point than this!

Secondly where do you think Full Service Broadband should fit in? Br, Behzad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Behzad.farmand (talk • contribs) 14:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

As to where to put this information, it clearly does not belong as the second paragraph in the Broadband or Broadband networks articles. Once you have findished the main article, links from various broadband-related articles may be appropriate. Oli Filth 17:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Request of permission

Hi. I'm the user nolaiz from spanish Misplaced Pages. I've translated the english article of "Comb Filter" to spanish, and I want to request your permission to use your graphics. Can you/I upload them to wiki commons?

Thank you.
-- nael —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.212.85.69 (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

The images have now been uploaded to Wikicommons. Oli Filth 12:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank You. :) nael 03:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

I, thanks for the heads up on the revertion-rule. I have posted an answer on my talk-page. I would be thankful if you gave me a reply. (And if you like, feel free to remove this message on your talk-page).

Best regards 195.159.3.166 aka Ga-david.b

Hello again. I see that the reversion-war banner has been removed, but I think you removed it a little to quickly as i think there still are problems with the article, and we still have a hard time with aggreing on a text that are both unbiased but still critical. Ga-david.b 13:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I got your message. I agree with your decision, and hope it will end up in something that could resolve the whole matter. Have you reported us upwards to someone with administrator capabilities? I definitely hope so, because the disagreement between DigitalRadioTech and me has been going on for months now, and to be honest I have no clue on how to end this. By the way, I see that DigitalRadioTech claims that we have agreed on a compromise, but this is not correct. No compromise has been presented for me. So, once again, thank you for trying to resolve this matter. Ga-david.b 09:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

DAB

Oli Filth, congratulations, you have just contributed to Misplaced Pages propagating lies. I have backed down because quite simply I'm wasting too much of my time sticking up for something even though I KNOW for absolutely certain is right! Basically, I've been bullied into backing down by you, Ga-David and Segrov.

I hope you feel proud of yourself for supporting people that deny that 192 kbps MP2 (the least efficient and oldest audio codec out of the audio codecs that are in-use these days) sounds worse than NICAM at a bit rate of around 724 kbps or APT-X (usually) at a bit rate of 384 kbps or (occasionally) 256 kbps. What an absolutely absurd suggestion, and yet just because I cannot actually prove it they get away with lying and hiding facts through technicalities.

I also hope you feel proud of yourself for supporting employees of NRK and/or P4, which are DAB broadcasters in Norway, who have continually lied about DAB over the last 18 months and continually slurred my character in the process.

Judging by your behaviour on here, I think you're in the wrong profession, pal. You should be a lawyer, not an engineer. Engineers are supposed to improve the world, not use technicalities to try and degrade things, which is what you've helped happen.

You said that you wondered why I was so bothered about this issue even though I could easily just say that 92% sound worse than FM instead of 99%. The one and only reason why I was bothered and why I wouldn't accept this is because saying that 160 kbps sounds as good as FM is a lie, and I am against lying. Clearly you're not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Digitalradiotech (talk • contribs) 17:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

In response, I can only say that there was no intention to "bully", at least not from me. All you had to do was find some credible/verifiable source that backed up your claim, and I would have fully supported you.

You're probably right that 160 kbit/s DAB sounds worse than FM, but you can't expect people to simply take it on faith that what you "know for absolutely certain is right" is actually correct. You can't get away with that in the scientific profession; even if you are the world's foremost expert on a subject, you can't simply publish unsubstantiated claims; there must always be a paper trail that allows people to verify that what you say is fair, and not just hearsay. Misplaced Pages isn't a scientific journal, but one would imagine that it aspires to the same level of rigour.

Quoted from WP:ATT: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true."

Oli Filth 19:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Question: which technology do you work on in your job? Is it: mobile phones or digital broadcasting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.121.83 (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm, neither. Oli Filth 16:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

zero ohms versus short circuit

When you visited my talk page, you wrote:

Also, I'm not sure why you have a problem with the definitions "zero resistance path" and "always having zero volts across it" being equivalent. You say that "a short circuit is not at all like a zero ohm resistor but is instead, an ideal voltage source where the voltage is exactly zero", but this is no different to a voltage source being equivalent to that voltage source in series with a zero-ohm resistor, or a resistor being equivalent to that resistor in series with a zero-voltage source, etc.

There is a subtle but distinct difference between something that is defined to be zero and something that is allowed to be zero. It's not that I have a problem with this. I understand the difference between the two very well. It's that, to be precise, there is a difference between a zero ohm resistance and a zero volt voltage source.

For the zero volt voltage source, the voltage across the source is defined to be zero. This is an identity. V is identical to zero.

For a resistor, the voltage across the resistor is defined to be R * I. Allowing R to be zero does not define V to be zero! For finite I, there is clearly zero volts across a zero ohm resistor. However, using a limit argument, I can (mathematically) produce an infinite I that will produce a non-zero voltage across a zero ohm resistor.

This may seem like hocus pocus but consider a well known derivation of the area under the unit impulse using a pulse of width X and height of 1/X. In the limit as X goes to zero, we have a finite area given by the product of 0 with infinity.

So, if I set the product of R * I to be V (by putting a V volt voltage source across the resistor) and then let R go to zero, I goes to infinity and the product of R * I remains V!

I hope you understand that my nitpickery is not intended to be a rant in any way but is instead meant to stimulate a conversation among EEs having a beer or three. Alfred Centauri 21:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

>>>

You then followed up with:

What you are saying is equivalent to saying that there is a meaningful solution (or useful definition) to 1 / x at x = 0, which can be derived from a limit process. But there isn't, not least because there are two confliciting limit processes (\lim_{x->0^+} and \lim_{x->0^-}). Sure, we could simply assign a definition to the expression (e.g. by choosing to work on a projective geometry), but what use would it be? e.g. we're told that I = \infty and R = 0, so V = ???.

I can't agree with you that what I'm saying is equivalent to what you're saying. Can you show this equivalence? I'm sure we can agree that the phrase "product of zero with infinity" cannot be taken literally, given that infinity is not a number, so that we can't actually evaluate the product in the ordinary way. Instead we can, at best, say that such a product is indeterminate. To evaluate it, a limit must be taken.

If you do this in the way I described, you will, by design, get the result that the product of R * I is V as we approach the limit of R = 0 (and from either direction, I might add) so the limit does appear to exist. I hope we can agree on that.

BTW, more food for thought along these same lines. What is the rms value of a zero frequency sinusoid? Certainly, the rms value of a sinusoid of vanishingly small frequency is 1/sqrt(2), right? Alfred Centauri 00:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

>>>

Another note on an entirely different subject. My first 'real' guitar was a previously owned Gibson SG that I purchased in 1977. I loved that way it played but I couldn't get it tuned to save my life. I replaced it a couple of years later with an Ibanez Artist that also played wonderfully and would tune up quite nicely. A few years later, I traded the Artist for a 1985 Les Paul Standard which I still own. Alfred Centauri 01:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on VMSK

Thanks so much for your support on the VMSK discuss page. Debunking an obscure bit of pseudoscience can get pretty lonely, so I really appreciate it.

Karn 21:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

links

You should not link to PDF if you mean probability density function. It redirected to Portable Document Format. Now I've changed it to a disambiguation page. Common sense. Michael Hardy 20:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

MD5's linkspam

Hi there,

Thanks for all your hard work keeping MD5 clean of link spam. Just so you know, I figured we don't need a hundred MD5 hashing tools so I'm just clearing out all but the reliable ones. Do you think we should request the URLs that keep getting put back on by anons to be blacklisted?

Draicone 22:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)