This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wtshymanski (talk | contribs) at 17:32, 2 July 2008 (revert Undid revision 223095815 by Fabartus (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:32, 2 July 2008 by Wtshymanski (talk | contribs) (revert Undid revision 223095815 by Fabartus (talk))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Binary Prefixes
- One thing I've learned...stick to your guns. --Wtshymanski 17
- 47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Electrical substation
Hiya. This article could do with a one-line diagram. Shall I draw one? Obviously, regional variations in symbols would be an issue, though. — BillC 16:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, sure! I will be using Inkscape to redraw it in SVG format, so a scan of a rough pen-and-paper sketch might even do. — BillC 17:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Was this the sort of thing you had in mind? — BillC 07:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Dispatcher training simulator
Hi Bill. If you get the time, perhaps you would care to look this short article over. I put it together a few days ago, but it would probably benefit from a second pair of eyes. Regards — BillC 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Great set of suggestions, I'll look at incorporating what I can find sources for. To answer a few of your questions, I very much doubt someone could qualify on simulator time only – they certainly couldn't at my organisation. A realistic simulator could run on a laptop, but in general these things are either the users' spare EMS, configured to run as a simulator; or a bolt-on package that simulates the response of the transmission system and the Data Acquisition gear. The 'difficult' scenarios vary according to the characteristics of the grid, I am sure, though we (and, from my correspondence, also my counterparts overseas) have had 'interesting' times trying to simulate synchronisation of multiple islands for black start. — BillC 23:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Light bulbs
I don't understand why we don't have an agreed upon and accepted multiplier to convert directly from lumens/watt ( printed on every lightbulb carton) to efficiency or efficacy. If there is one, what is it? 90% efficiency sounds too high and 2% sounds too low for incandescent light bulbs. In the early 20th century 95% efficiency was sometimes cited. Higher efficiency was obtained at the cost of shorter lifetime, even back in the 1880's. Edison (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- But lumens/watt varies by bulb size and voltage and type. Invariably disputes about "efficiency" are really disputes about the definition. What is the output of a light bulb? Monochromatic green light at 555 nm, or "white" light? That by itself is nearly a 3:1 ratio of lumens/watt. The ~2% crowd are doubtless pointing at 685 lumens/watt for green light, whereas the ~10% are using 230 lumens/watt for white light. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Ring indicator
Wtshymanski,
I note that you have changed the Ring indicator article to a redirect for the third time in a row. Misplaced Pages works by building consensus, which is what you should seek before making this change. At the very least, discussion on the talk page would be much more productive. Blanking a page in favor of a redirect is tantamount to deleting it. Misplaced Pages has a process called AfD (Articles for Deletion) that seeks the community's consensus before deciding that a page should be deleted. Only administrators are authorized to delete content on sight, and only subject to rather specific rules, such as blatant vandalism or test pages. If you disagree that the ring indicator should be on Misplaced Pages, then I encourage you to put that article through the AfD process. This is preferable to repeatedly blanking the page and converting it to a redirect, which is considered disruptive. Reswobslc (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- A merge is not deletion. I don't want the information deleted from Misplaced Pages, I want it put in a place where it will get seen. The unique content of the article was moved to the much more commonly used RS 232 article. The article was nominated for a merge several months ago. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
GMRS is also Canadian
You're wrong about GMRS being a USA service. it is also Canadian. Have a look: Government of Canada, Gazette Notice No. SNSE-013-04, Industry Canada, Radiocommunication Act. Respectfully, Fremte (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)