Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 216.211.51.170 (talk) at 02:34, 5 March 2009 (→WFF vandal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Binary Prefixes

One thing I've learned...stick to your guns.

--Wtshymanski 17:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Mains power systems

OK, what exactly in Liberia am I supposed to look at as referenced in your edit summary? Further, how do you figure the text does not violate the policy of WP:NOTHOWTO, and since it is unreferenced WP:V? Or are you going with the thread on the talk page, which would violate WP:OR? Also, please not that Misplaced Pages fails as a WP:RS, so we cannot reference articles with Misplaced Pages references. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh you horrible little man. Go away. Liberia had a civil war, you know, and it did destroy their electrical infrastructure. Go fix a Pokemon article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Not only at this point are you exercising ownership of the article, but now you are being incivil and have leveled a personal attack. Please reconsider your actions and remove your comment here, and revert at the article. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Power factor

I would like to learn more about your ideas regarding the range of Power Factor, which I have always understood to be a value between -1 and 1. My impression is that you believe the correct range for Power Factor is between 0 and 1. Could you explain more? Your range puzzles me, because power factor is usually considered to be the ratio of watts (measured over some integer number of periods) which of course can be either positive or negative, to volt-amps (measured over the same number of periods), which is by definition positive.

I note your comment that "power flows in both directions", which is of course true for instantaneous power. But when we are discussing power factor, the power we are concerned with is the average power, which is instantaneous power averaged over an integer number of periods -- the Misplaced Pages article correctly shows this as a horizontal pinkish line in its graphs. Average power is usually positive, i.e. it usually flows from the nominal source to the nominal load. But it certainly can be negative - if you're not sure about this, just do a quick calculation of watts with 180 degrees between the voltage and current waveforms. Indeed, with the increasing number of microgenerator sources in the grid (photovoltaic, etc.), it is becoming more common for the power that flows through a revenue meter to be positive during part of the day and all of the night, but negative during the times of day when there is strong solar radiation available. So in the case of true PF=W/VA, W can be positive or negative but never larger than VA, and the correct range for PF is -1 to 1.

Is there any possibility you were confused by the terminology used back when displacement power factor dPF=cosine(angle between voltage and current) was commonly used? dPF is equal to true PF if both the voltage waveform and the current waveform are sinusoidal. These days, there are so many non-linear loads that the current is often highly distorted, so true PF is a much better measure for most purposes. (dPF is still the correct measurement to use if, and only if, you are choosing the size of power factor correction capacitors.) The possible confusion, in dPF, is that it was conventional to use a "+" or a "-" to indicate leading or lagging - somewhat misleading and mathematically inaccurate, of course, because it made the assumption that the power flow was in the expected direction. But, for dPF, it was a good enough assumption from the 1920's through the 1980's or so.

Some background (so you don't dismiss me as a crank!): I am the President of Power Standards Lab in California, the author of the Electric Power Measurements article in the Encyclopedia of Electrical Engineering, a Senior Member of the IEEE, the author of various texts on measurements in the electric power grid, etc., so I am at least a little familiar with this topic. With best wishes - Alex McEachern AMcEachern (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Responses at Mr. McEachern's talk page, though regrettably he seems to have gotten discouraged and left.

Merges

I opened a thread at talk:IBM PC-DOS; please discuss there before merging IBMBIO and IBMDOS. Thanks, JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

These still look like candidates to merge to me. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thury

Thanks Bill. At least I know now that one person read it, and can appreciate his significance. I think I'd like this guy if I worked with him. Pragmatic, alert towards opportunities and stubborn.

He was one of many under appreciated engineer inventors whose story and significance is now only beginning to be understood. Another guy is the Russian fellow- Pavel Yablochkov who figured out how to use AC to run multiple arcs off a single generator. The interesting part was that he understood the potential of transformers because he employed an induction coil in his system. So when some hobbyist guys get a hold of his system and do a multiple mile test in London, we have the first case of long distance ac system employing a transformer to change voltages. I think I put that story in the history of electricity transmission article. To be accurate, I believe Yablochkov was using the coil to step up rather than step down the voltage. What would be really interesting is if it came out that George Westinghouse took a close look at it and understood why he needed to get Stanley working on transformers, and why Tesla's step up transformers would be exceptionally valuable.

That's the frequent pattern with invention. One guy takes it a small step, and another sees broader uses and expands the application. Kind of like how a steam engine and the industrial revolution came about due to a guy named Thomas Savery who was only interested in removing water from mines. -J JMesserly (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

NTSC

Thanks for the note. While the article has improved considerably in scope, I still think there are some problems with the article structure and tone. There's a lot of very technical information that should probably be confined to the Technical Details section, and a good portion of the article uses informal voice ("This is done by...", "You could think of it as...", etc.) The content on the whole is really good, it just needs some formalization.  :) I've left the tag for now, but keep up the good work! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a good place elsewhere to put the Color Encoding section you deleted from NTSC? Should it have its own article? Seems a shame to just lose it. Also, see the discussion at Talk:NTSC#NTSC_is_just_a_colour_encoding_system!. — Wdfarmer (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I should have left a note in the edit summary - I thougt it fit very well in to Color television so that's where the comparision of the different standards went. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at the Stray voltage article

(This is being CC'd to both Wtshymanski's and Plugwash's talk.) :-)

Due your background in electrical systems I think you could provide valuable edits to the Stray voltage article, which is just a mess right now. I am trying to put in some objective science discussion of eddy currents, inductive heating, capacitive coupling, ground loops, etc, but it really needs more work. I will dig through my public domain Hawkins/Audels illustration collection to see if I can help flesh out the science better. DMahalko (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Incandescent arc lamps?"

I deleted the section on these and you reverted my deletion. How does a website with nothing but four images and no text or references constitute a "reliable source" to show that these lamps are incandescent lamps? A journal, book, or other reliable source is needed, with text, not just images. I remain skeptical, and ask that you find reliable sources or remove the section.Is this a signed scholarly work? Seems not. It fails WP:RS and WP:V, and gives undue weight to a fringe topic within incandescent lamps, even if someone did manufacture such an odd duck once upon a time. The present article implies they are as important as halogen lamps. The whole site seems like a less than reliable source. Does it have an identified editorial board?No. Are the articles signed? No. I could create a personal website, of equal authority with this hobbyist site, which said there was no such a type of lamp, and it would equally not be a reliable source. Edison (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What an odd place to worry about references. Very well, I'll dig up some other references...the problem is that I can't recall when and where I've read about these things. I'll have to drag out my IES handbook. I may have to spend as much as 5 minutes with Google to track down a reference...--Wtshymanski (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with undue weight being given to a niche market, if it is even verifiable. What an odd type of bulb. How many other rare types of bulbs have been made in the past 130 years, and should each of them also get a paragraph as prominent as important types of bulbs? Edison (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's five sentences in an article that rambles on for a page about lamp bases (and that's after we've moved the inane trainspotter's guides to their very own articles). I did not list all the Google hits on papers referencing "pointolite" lamps but they evidently were significant as microscope illuminators and in other instruments. I found enough references to make me happy - it's not supposed to be an article on incandescent arc lamps. It's admittedly an obsolete variant, but it is an incandescent tungsten lamp that doesn't rely on the incandescence of a filament, which I think is "illuminating". I think technological fundamentals are more important in encyclopedia articles than parts lists, but you don't have to go far to find editors who disagree with me. We shouldn't confine the article to the 6 different bulbs I can buy at my local grocery store, should we? (There's also some cool stuff in the 1922 Britannica supplement, but too much detail for this article.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, Misplaced Pages doesn't have a identifiable editorial board or signed articles, either. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that when Davy first dmade electricity arc between carbon points circa 1808, as in arc lamps of the late 19th century or the 20th century, much of the light came not from the arcing through the air, but from the white-hot incandescence of the carbon electrodes. This bulb belongs in the arc light article, not the incandescent light article. In operation, it emits light as an arc, right? I stil see the prominence it has in the article as undue weight. Hiram Percy Maxim made bulbs with a filament in an "M" shape. Should there be five sentences about bulbs with "M" shaped filaments? Misplaced Pages is not a directory, and we do not need a paragraph on everything which ever existed.As for present references 38 and 39, can't you provide a more direst link than "Look it up on your own at the Internet Archive?" A book from the 1920's is hardly an archived web page, is it? Edison (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Now you're being insulting. If archived Web pages are your only acceptable references, you have a unique idea of what's a reliable source. I give the direct page numbers of the books in question, which you could consult just like a regular paper book. I don't know what the Misplaced Pages style is for referring to a book on the Internet Archive and I thought the paper-style citation would have been sufficient; I could have been mysterious and left off the observation that these books are on the Archive but I fail to see what purpose that would have achieved. It's hardly any more work for an interested observer to type in the title and get the .PDF than it would be to retreive a paper copy of the book from a physical library. I don't know how to link through to a page of a .PDF file on the Internet archive (from what I understand, it may not even be possible).

As the references and this article currently say, the light from the arc is not significant and most of the light comes from the incandescent bead. You objected to the quality of the reference I'd originally posted, I fixed that with a little Google searching. I believe the article does mention Maxim bulbs and their distinictive filaments, if not, it ought to. I think 4 references is sufficient for what was intended to be an illustration of a byway. I think that, especially as one reference is intended as an instruction manual for people learing about electricity, that it shows the Pointolite lamp was important at the time and not a fringe topic. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You have verified it existed, and one good ref is sufficient. The Internet Archive seems ok as a ref, since typing in the exact title brings up the book, as does simply Googling the title. I'sm just a little concerned about sticking in 5 sentences about each of the thousands of variants on light bulbs. Maybe this odd one is worth the space. Edison (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there's "thousands" of variants left, considering all the factors we already have in the article. There's regular carbon, flashed carbon, platinum, osmium, tantalum and tungsten filaments, coiled coil filaments. There's Nernst burners. There's vacuum, gas-filled, and halogen. There's different shapes of bulbs. There's clear bulbs, frosted bulbs and colored bulbs. There's different applications (general illumination / projection / optical / miniature / indicators). There's different bases. There's a range of voltages and power ratings. All of these we describe in the article. Agreed, we don't want anyone posting the Sylvania or Osram catalog in here, but if there's a variant that doesn't already have its distinguishing factors described in this article, I'd like to see it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at Talk:Carter system

Please take a look at Talk:Carter system, left msg. LP-mn (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't know enough about it to contribute. I haven't run across a description of the carter system in the internet Archive books I've looked at so far. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

CTL better now?

Setting aside the style and appearance issues, what's your reaction to the just updated citations, references, sources, etc. to "Circuit Total Limitation"?
Yes, I know, it's ugly. But style and appearance can always be tweaked by anyone.
LP-mn (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The references are better, its always better to give a page number instead of pointing at an 800-page document. I'm not convinced the topic needs an article - now that I've read up on it, it seems to be purely a problem in the way the NEC and UL decided to define certain panelboards for a time. It's a bit like having an article on "Don't walk in front of a moving bus" - the panels are labelled with the requirement, and if an end user chooses to abuse the equipment that's hardly the fault of the panel or the code-making authorities.

As I mentioned, the Canadian code has never had such a requirement. Perhaps it's because CSA writes both the CEC and the equipment standards, whereas in the US the NFPA writes the electrical code and UL tests and approves devices...this has got to lead to interesting complications. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

1) I'm not sure when I added the reference to "in the United States", but I do know I never made any reference to Canada. That aspect seems irrelevant to me. i.e.: If you/they don't use the NFPA-70, then so what? The article never made reference to Canadian standards.
2) I suppose that I could delete the "flags" for lack of a better name, that are at the top of the page, but I'd prefer the person who but them there to do so. Am I correct in assuming you are the one who attached them? If you deem it appropriate, please delete every one _EXCEPT_ the {{cleanup}} tag, as I agree it needs more polish.
3) As for the need of an article, in this day and age where everyone looks stuff up on the web, it's hard to describe this issue to somebody, especially a politician or other relevant authority, if one can't point to a web page and say read about it "here".
4) As for "interesting complications", boy or boy, you haven't seen the images of some panels that I still hope to attach to the article.
LP-mn (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The electric motor, the dynamo, and Ányos Jedlik

I don't suppose by any chance you are fluent in Hungarian, are you? An editor has recently claimed that Ányos Jedlik invented the electric motor in 1828, as well as the dynamo. The references which give any detail are in Hungarian. I am all for giving credit where credit is due, for 19th century electrical inventions, but I like to see some proof: patents, publications, and public demonstrations. Thomas Davenport built electric motors in the 1830s and used them to power such machines as model electric trains and a printing press. Several inventors in the 1860's such as Antonio Pacinotti, Zénobe Gramme, and Ernst Werner von Siemens are credited by most histories of electrical technology as inventing the dynamo with electromagnets for the rotor and stator. Please take a look at Ányos Jedlik , Jedlik's dynamo, Dynamo, and Electric motor to see if the claims for Jedlik's contribution go too far. Thanks. Edison (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I might have a bottle of paprika in the house, that's about as close as I get to understanding Hungarian. I think if there was any validity to the claim we'd be reading about it in English-language publications - you can't crack a book about transformer history without reading about the Ganz company and the ZBD transformer design. So it's not like there's a vast anti-Hungarian conspiracy. I am working my way through the Internet Archive looking for old books on electrotechnology; so far I haven't found anything linking to Jedlik. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I give points for public demonstrations, taking out a patent, presenting it to scientific and technical societies, having contemporaneous writeups in technical and scientific journals, and having a demonstrable influence on the development of the field. Davenport published, demonstrated, and patented, but was apparently forgotten, and the motor was "discovered" by Gramme's workman in 1873. For Jedlik there are the refs in Hungarian, then bald and somewhat jingoistic assertions that "he invented" the electric motor and the dynamo. Someone must familiar with electricity, open minded, and able to read Hungarian. Nature in his 1896 obituary said he experimented with a commutator equipped motor, with two electromagnets, in 1828, but did not publish it, and that he seemed to have built a dynamo in 1860 or thereabouts, but similarly did not publicize his supposed invention. Is a "secret inventor" the true inventor, if others independently discovered the same thing and built an industry? In other 19th century inventions such as the incandescent light bulb and the telephone, there were lots of "prior inventors" who only showed their closest associates and did not publish, or who perhaps created their inventions long after the fact, who do not get credit for their dubious inventions. Edison (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've read that in astronomy, they say "If you didn't write it down, it didn't happen." Let the secret inventors revel in their arcane knowledge - we should properly recognize and praise those who bring the art to the world, not the hoarders. For an incredibly tiring demonstration, look at the invention of radio article and the Tesla advocate there. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WFF vandal

Let me know if the Winnipeg Folk Festival vandal resurfaces. If they do, I should be able to shut them down via a range block. Thanks, caknuck _° remains gainfully employed 15:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that Birds Hill Provincial Park also had been protected. He's also hit Trachtenburg Family Slideshow Players and Festival (It's tough to put a comprehensive list together as they frequently IP hop). I'll check to see how bad the collateral damage of a rangeblock will be and if it's acceptable, I'll apply the rangeblock(s). Otherwise, I'll contact the vandal's ISP. caknuck _° remains gainfully employed 16:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You guys found my Trachtenburg edit?!? I'm impressed :) Of course, that does indicate that you've utilized CheckUser outside of the outlined Misplaced Pages policy, but what else is new with today's Wikipedians? Next you'll end up pigeonholing me as Swamilive and blindly linking me to all his edits just because we're from the same Canadian province. My edits have consistently involved the simple inclusion of a very worthy (although you will inevitably disagree, having not reviewed it properly) section in a number of articles relating to their cultural relevance. 216.211.51.170 (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)