User talk:Chetvorno/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Antenna feed

added links pointing to Polarization and Reactance

Circuit switching

added a link pointing to Trunkline

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Arrays

Hi. Here is my opinion: The targeted audience are newcomers, who want to get informed the first time. It is a basic article for arrays in general. A basic description or overview, however, is missing (since the information is widely spread in the article and not very well condensed). There is no real red line. 1. I think the summary is necessary, since these points (which are the major advantages of this technology) are only hard to get in the text. 2. I think the last paragraph of the intro provides an overview of all relevant use cases, that are not very clear from the rest of the article, since it is more or less a broad mix, without clear order. 3. If the grammar is the problem, feel free to correct it. => If you want to add, please. 188.193.103.199 (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your general point. Can we discuss this on the article's Talk page Talk:Antenna array, so other editors can participate? I left a list of the criticisms I have in the "Recent edits to introduction" section. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Im out, if you think this fits in, then discuss it. I think it provides an add-on, so I dont see the point.188.193.103.199 (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Time keeping devices

Thanks for the comments in the talk page, Chetvorno, they are much appreciated and very helpful. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm working through the article, and haven't forgotten to address your comments. There's a lot of reading up to do, and I want to get my facts right. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Transceiver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Audio.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Vacuum Tubes and Solid State

For what arbitrary reason are vacuum tubes, which would be considered solid state by people outside the electronics field as they have no moving parts, not considered solid state electronics to those in the electronics field? I cannot find a reason for this stated anywhere I look. It would be helpful if that article said why this was.Tadfafty (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Short Description

(I rather like what you have written on your User Page about the keepers and tellers of the cultural stories. I believe they have a lot to answer for as they continually mislead their cultures through false stories (as you say) and the pursuit of the holy dollar. You give a very interesting and appealing function for Wikipedia in what you have scribed. May it prevail. )

It was a good faith edit and I had to think about it for a few moments. Your revert goes to 75 characters which defeats the purpose. With short descriptions, we have a situation where we are aiming to have a maximum of 40 characters. The driving reason is that the short description is displayed on the mobile access to the article in a search result. 65% of access to Wikipedia is now via mobile devices or tablets. With courtesy, your reversion somewhat defeats that objective to display a short description that is readable on the mobile device. Descriptions over 40 characters get chopped off. In this instance, your guidance is sought. What form of short description would you consider appropriate? --Whiteguru (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Your revert on Passive sign convention

Hi there, reverting my diagram change you wrote "Reverted diagram change. The previous diagram was totally misleading, it gave the impression that the passive sign convention is used with loads but the active sign convention is used with sources" Isn't it that way? As shown by the animated GIFs below, ASC and PSC complement each other, with ASC defining signs and directions for power transfer from an active component into the circuit, while PSC defines signs and directions for power transfer from the circuit into a passive component, since active and passive components always belong together if considering electric circuits as kind of a "power transfering machine" or "chain". So what was wrong in my diagram showing both conventions as complementing each other? Greetings Qniemiec (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I guess it is a little confusing. The animations explain the difference between active components (power sources) and passive components (loads). But the passive sign convention applies to the whole circuit, all components, both active and passive. The PSC defines power flowing into a component as positive, and power flowing out of a component as negative. So passive components have positive power flow, while active components have negative power flow. It is used because some components (such as a rechargeable battery) may function as both sources and loads at different times, and you don't know which until the circuit is analyzed. The active sign convention is not used in ordinary electronics. With the system you describe, with sources defined by the ASC and loads defined by the PSC, you would have to know before analyzing the circuit which components are functioning as power sources and which as loads. The article tries to explain all this. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I like a lot of the improvements you made to the diagrams. I like your idea of a diagram that shows a complete circuit, a source and a load. However I feel any such diagram would be too confusing for nontechnical readers. The diagram would have to show the "reference directions" of current (the direction which is defined as positive) as well as the direction of the actual current. In the PSC the "reference direction" of current is into the positive terminal in both active and passive components, so there would have to be arrows in opposite directions, pointing into the positive terminals of both components, which I don't think general readers would understand. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the flowers, :-) and vice versa: your GIF animation of an electric power source, which I flipped horizontally to create a closed circuit with your GIF of an electric load, is one of the best demonstrations of electromotive force as kind of a "pump of charges" against the E field it creates that I know. The problems, however, emerge with the power arrows: in your GIFs you focus on the power transfer from the "surrounding" (in its broader sense, because it may also mean the chemicals inside a battery) into the circuit on the source's side, and from the circuit into the "surrounding" on the load's side, so a source "consumes" power, i.e. has p < 0, while a load "emits" power, i.e. has p > 0. Inside the circuit however, what you depict with your ASC and PSC SVGs, the situation is exactly contrary: sources "emit" power into the circuit, while loads "consume" it from the circuit - thus combining both aspects together would create a perfect chain of power transfer, with sources having a negative power balance with respect to the "surrounding" on their left, and positive power balance with respect to the circuit they feed on their right, while in case of loads it would look quite oppositely, i.e. having negative balances with respect to the circuit on their left, and positive balances with respect to the "surrounding" on their right. Don't the directions of power flow and actual current, as you show it in your GIFs, always correspond, i.e. if the actual current flips, the power flow also does? Greetings, Qniemiec (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Direction of voltage reference-arrow

Hi there, another issue: in your drawing of PSC from June the voltage arrow had two arrowheads, which I adapted back to the way you draw the voltage arrow in your GIFs from 2013, i.e. with one arrowhead pointing towards the positive terminal. However, continuing my studies of electric network diagrams, I found that unlike in English literature, where polarity of voltage sources is usually explicitely marked by plus and minus signs, in German diagrams polarity of DC sources is - if marked by arrows only - mostly marked by arrows pointing towards lower potential, i.e. from positive towards negative terminal. And by consequence in case of the polarity of loads as well, i.e. pointing from their positive towards their negative terminal and thus in the direction of positive current. Did you choose the direction of your arrows in your SVGs from 2012 and GIFs from 2013, i.e. from minus to plus, based on some convention I should know, while "leaving the doors" open in your ASC and PSC update from this years's June? Commenting the update you wrote: "Put arrowheads on both voltage arrows to prevent ambiguity due to differing conventions in different countries for showing the polarity of a voltage difference with an arrow". Honestly speaking, the "English way" with marking polarity explicitely by plus and minus signs is much clearer, at least for DC sources, but what to do, if text books with arrows have already been printed? ;-) Where did you find other arrow conventions than your initial one? Astounding that unlike we think of science as one consistent building nowadays, it actually still uses so different conventions in different areas, e.g. the way vectors are written in English and German mathematics, or resistors in English and German electronics... Greetings, Qniemiec (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

PS. As I've just seen, you turned from one arrowhead to two arrowheads not earlier that in this year's June, while I uploaded my updated versions with only one outer arrowhead, but red E field arrows inside the component in August, not realizing that you've just changed your mind in this issue two months ago. What was the reason? Where did you stepped on other conventions than the one you used from 2012 to 2021? Qniemiec (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Qniemiec: Sorry for the delay. I have a backlog of WP articles I am working on and less time for editing. I didn't quite understand all your comments above. On the original drawings I used a convention common in American schematics: the polarity of a voltage variable is indicated by an arrow pointing from the negative to the positive node. Thank you for informing me of the German notation difference. In response to your note, on the ASC and PSC drawings I changed the notation from arrows to plus and minus signs, which should be unambiguous in all countries. I haven't had time to change the GIF animations yet, but I am planning to similarly change the notation indicating the polarity of the voltage variable from arrowheads to plus and minus signs. --Chetvorno^TALK 10:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I like the electric field arrows you added, but I have some reservations about you reversing the ASC drawing right to left, which I will discuss later. --Chetvorno^TALK 10:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Chetvorno, thank you for your response, and its indeed a big problem with these different conventions. Even in mathematics where one should expect uniformity, e.g. vectors in English texts are written with bold italic letters, while they are marked as vectors by an arrow above them in German text books. So in case of the latter even in hand writing it's always clear then, what a vector is, and what a scalar, while I wonder how they distinguish both in English hand written calculations: if printed, it's clear that a·b means the a-fold of vector b, while a·b means just the product of scalars a and b, but how to make this clear writing by hand? OTOH, the English convention of marking a DC source's polarity by plus and minus is much better that what I observe in some (older) German text books and exercise collections.
And as far as its concerns the directions of ASC and PSC figures, I'd just prefer to draw them in a way that allows to compose a closed circuit of power transmission from them, as this appears to me as the basic distinction between active and passive elements: active elements "consume" (electric or other, e.g. chemical) energy from some "outer source" or "environment" (in it's most extended meaning) and emit it as electric energy into the circuit, while passive elements "consume" electric energy from the circuit and "emit" it (as electric or other, e.g. kinetic energy) to the "environment" (in it's most extended meaning again), i.e. active and passive elements actually create a power transmission chain, which should also be visible when combining ASC and PSC. Greetings, Qniemiec (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess it's too much to expect that notation conventions are consistent between countries, LOL. Kind of scary when you remember that safety-critical aircraft and auto electronics are built in multiple countries nowadays.

I like that idea of combining two components into a circuit, but it is not appropriate to do with the ASC (Active sign convention.svg) and PSC (Passive sign convention.svg) diagrams. That is because the component in the PSC diagram does not represent a passive component; it can represent either a passive or active component. The diagram shows the relationships in the passive sign convention which apply to all components. Similarly the component in the ASC diagram is not necessarily a power source, it represents the relations in the active sign convention. Also the arrows labeled P don't represent the actual direction of power in a circuit, they represent the "reference direction" of the power variable, the direction of power flow which is positive. And the arrow on i and the plus and minus on v in the drawing don't represent the actual direction of current or voltage, they represent the "reference directions" of the variables i and v. This is also why it is confusing to reverse the ASC diagram; it makes readers believe it represents an active component. If you want to combine an active and passive component to make a circuit it would be appropriate to do it with the GIFs Electric power source animation.gif and Electric load animation.gif because they actually represent active and passive components. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Pragyanc

Re [1], you might be interested in my post at User talk:Pragyanc. SpinningSpark 08:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I kind of thought that was a self-cite, but didn't notice the name. There is no way to check if an editor has cited his own work, is there? Unless he has used part of his real name in his username, as here? I come across a number of edits that I suspect are self-cites, but if there is no clue in the username I usually don't mention it to the editor. --Chetvorno^TALK 09:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Well there's WP:DUCK and an editor who has been doing nothing but posting material from the same author since 2016 comes under that. You can always post {{uw-coi}} on their talk page which is not accusatory but gets the message across (although it is not really targeted at academics). But you are right, there is no means of establishing the real life identities of editors, and we are not really meant to even try to do that because of WP:OUTING. The bottom line here is that cite bombing across multiple articles is problematic whatever the reason the editor has for doing it. SpinningSpark 09:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Please ask for guidance

In article Nikola Tesla , I made some mistakes, thank for your revert! I have a question about that, Tesla is not physicist, Why he belongs to WikiProject Physics? Because he used to still contributes in the field of physics? MoJieCPD (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The only place on that page that I see his name is the article Nikola Tesla is in the list of Good articles. This is just an award for well-written articles. Cheers --Chetvorno^TALK 19:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

oh, I mean in talk page, here "This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects", "WikiProject Physics / Biographies / History (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)". It belongs to Physics. I don't understand. MoJieCPD (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I would support Tesla being in the physics wikiproject. You are right he was not a physicist, but much of his work is of interest to physicists – he has added to the body of knowledge. To give you a more general answer, any random person can add any article to any wikiproject. More often than not, these are not members of the project, but editors looking for articles not in any project and then putting them in one or more. Ocassionally, a project member will remove an unsuitable article, but the truth is that most wikiprojects are moribund and not actively maintaining articles. Even wikiprojects which are active don't pay much attention to this. SpinningSpark 19:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: I disagree. Tesla is a cult figure, with an echo chamber of dozens of fanboy websites [2], [3] which spread wildly false claims of his accomplishments. (some are debunked here) People who get their information from these sites can be excused for putting him in the physics wikiproject, but he doesn't belong there. The truth is Tesla was an exceptionally gifted, creative engineer and inventor, but not a scientist. He didn't do any scientific research, or publish in physics journals. He didn't add to the body of knowledge - he didn't discover any new physical principles. He liked to pontificate in the lay press about revolutionary physics theories, but these were in the realm of pseudoscience, like antigravity. His scientific thinking was mired in 19th century concepts like ether, he never accepted the electron or relativity, and believed erroneously that radio transmission was due to ground currents. Part of the problem is that several of his early biographies Seifer and O'Neill were written by credulous fans who accepted everything he said at face value. These may call Tesla a scientist. More objective bios like Carlson don't. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think we should just look at whether he has published any relevant papers, there are also no relevant restrictions on this for physicists.
• I think Tesla belonged to the category of experimental physicists, who did experiments and analysed them and eventually applied them to practical problems, and he also worked in the field of electromagnetic fields, which belong to the field of physics.
• I am concerned that you always bring up some of Tesla's wrong research. Yes, maybe some of Tesla's research was wrong, but he still researched and contributed to the field and we should not judge him as a figure in the field based on what he did right or wrong, just like a singer whose songs may not be well received, but that does not negate him as a singer. MoJieCPD (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@MoJieCPD: If nobody objects I'm going to move this discussion to Talk:Nikola Tesla so other interested editors can participate. OK? --Chetvorno^TALK 21:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it’s OK. MoJieCPD (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

(Copied thread to Talk:Nikola Tesla#Was Tesla a scientist?. Please continue discussion there)

Ok, and sorry for stalking your talk page. SpinningSpark 06:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Glad you joined the conversation! --Chetvorno^TALK 10:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Re "energy"

WP:TLDR @BirdValiant: @Kent Dominic: Wikipedia Talk pages are not for discussion of the subject but discussion of the article (WP:TALK). It doesn’t matter what you think about it, all content on Wikipedia must be supported by WP:reliable sources, not your own opinions (WP:V) --Chetvorno^TALK 00:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hi Chetvorno! I just wanted to say thanks for all you do around here. In particular, all your help on lighting and electrical discharges, and in general, just helping to make technical articles more accessible to the general reader. Thanks. I wish you a very happy holiday, and may the coming year bring you happiness and joy. And, if you don't celebrate Christmas, then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, a really good Saturday, or whatever holiday you want to insert there. Zaereth (talk) 08:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

"Half power beam width" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Half power beam width and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 6#Half power beam width until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Crystal radio‎

Just FYI I capitalized the word germanium because it begins a new sentence. Have a closer look. --Marshallsumter (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, my bad, I missed that. Thanks for the correction! Cheers

--ChetvornoTALK 20:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Nominating International System of Units for Featured Article Status

I want International System of Units to be a featured article. Can you help me edit it so it's ready for FA nomination? ScientistBuilder (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, SB. I appreciate the expertise you bring to Atomic clock, do you work in that field? On International System of Units, thank you for asking. I'd like to, but I don't really have a lot of knowledge in that area, and I have a backlog of articles to finish. And I only have experience with bringing one article, Negative resistance, to Good Article status, and on that I was guided by User:Spinningspark. You might want to contact him, he's a very collaborative editor and he's undubitably the record holder for engineering FAs - at last count he is responsible for 8 FAs and 64 GAs. --Chetvorno^TALK 03:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for your edits on the QAnon and Ron Watkins article (re the NYT analysis of Q's "drops")! AFreshStart (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I just finished dinner, ready for dessert .... mmmmm!

The QAnon article looks very balanced and thorough. Congrats to you guys for some important, valuable work. --Chetvorno^TALK 02:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Using a template to insert tables

This is an example shown to me by Spinningspark. Apparently, you setup a template with the content and then insert the template.  The template is Template:Elvis Presley singles. You would set state=expanded if you wanted it to always be expanded.

Constant314 (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Great trick! Kind of a different use for an infobox. I've seen a lot of tables that are duplicated in more than one article. The example that comes to mind is the ITU radio frequency bands. Thanks! --Chetvorno^TALK 22:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

A better picture of a plane wave

@Chetvorno:. Greetings. After our discussion on Talk:Electromagnetic radiation and having admired your illustrating skills for a long time, I would like to discuss a possible collaboration to pruduce a better picture of a plane wave. Please have a look at this article in EDN Magazine [4] when you have a chance. I know the author and I agree with everything he says, but his drawings are not that good. Constant314 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that really gives an understanding of how an electromagnetic wave works. I'd like to take a whack at it. I agree the drawings are clunky and abstract (I'm sure magazines don't have much time to devote to original artwork), and can be done better. Do you have ideas for how to improve the drawings? Off the top of my head, here are some questions I had:

• As I understand it, the drawing or drawings have to portray 4 intertwined fields: ${\vec {E}},{\partial {\vec {D}} \over \partial t},{\vec {B}},{\partial {\vec {H}} \over \partial t}$, as field lines. Do we do it as one drawing or several, as in the article?
• The side view used in the initial drawings requires the dot and cross terminology for showing fields into or out of the page. If all the images were drawn with the isometric projection used in the later drawings, this would be unnecessary.
• If the drawings show an electromagnetic wave in vacuum, I don't really see why both E and D, and B and H, have to be used. It would improve understanding to just use a single electric field E and single magnetic field, B or H, and their derivatives.
• Since the crucial idea is that the source of the curl is a vector field which is the time derivative of another vector field ${\partial {\vec {D}} \over \partial t}$ and ${\partial {\vec {H}} \over \partial t}$ , maybe an animated drawing might improve comprehension?

--Chetvorno^TALK 23:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I like all your ideas. I have to admit that I am the person that drew those crude drawings. I hate that dot and cross convention also. It was the best I could do using Microsoft visio. Don't feel like you have to hold back critiquing those pictures. Your talent is so much greater than mine, that I want to see what you come up with without limiting you. I agree that we don’t need both E and D nor do we need both H and B. It is more of a labeling issue than a drawing issue. Since the units on the axis are undefined, E and D can literally have the same field lines. By the way, if we were to use the Gaussian CGS system, then ε₀ = μ₀ = 1.

I probably have a slow brain. I am fine with animation, as long as it is slow.

Once we have a picture, the problem will be how to introduce it without it being OR. To me, it is just a straight forward application of the math, but as we can see from our discussions on Talk:Electromagnetic radiation we might get some pushback on that. Constant314 (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

You worked with EDN? Wow. The EDN drawings are really fine for the readership they are aimed at, engineers. I had no problem understanding them. You might have the wrong idea about my abilities. I am not trained in graphics and I just use amateur tools, Inkscape, so no doubt I'm a lot slower than a graphic artist. When I did the previous drawings I just had a lot of time on my hands.

It never occurred to me that this might be considered OR, but I guess that's possible. If there is serious pushback we can request comment from the Electronics and Physics projects. I would think anyone educated in electromagnetics can see that the drawings (in addition to being straightforward applications of the math) are based on a reliable source, the EDN article. The new drawings will just be interpretations of the published ones, they will have the same content.

I'll draw up something. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I would not say that I worked with EDN. I just published an article every so often to earn a few bonus points with my employer to be used around annual review time. EDN is a reliable source, but I cannot use that article in a Wikipedia article because of my COI issue. So, yes, I hope we can recruit others. I wonder if you might want to create a subpage in your user space for this project to avoid cluttering your talk page. Constant314 (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll put it in User:Chetvorno/work --Chetvorno^TALK 18:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Rejuvenate WikiProject Skepticism

Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [5] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Radio

Hi. I read your statement that you wrote most of the article without sources, and that you intend to restore the material with sources, in time. I want to thank you for conceding both points. But I would also like to know, why did you write it without sources? I'm not trying to attack you or anything; I'm genuinely interested in your viewpoint/mindset. I want to understand your reasoning at the time you wrote it. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Please cease violating Wikipedia by adding or restoring uncited material to articles, as you did with these edits to the Radio article. Adding or restoring uncited material that derived solely from your personal knowledge is strictly prohibited by WP:NOR, nor can one Wikipedia article be cited as a source in another, per WP:CIRCULAR, as I stated repeatedly in the article's talk page discussion. A number of arguments predicated on fallacies were offered to justify violating policy, and after I responded to each one to explained why the were wrong or unsound, none of those participants could respond to refute my counterarguments. When one of them attempted to report me at ANI, ANI judged my talk page moves and reverts to be "no violation". I have already alerted administrators to that editor's continued policy violations and to yours. Please do not continue violating policy. Nightscream (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The edits you complain about above were addition of sources to the article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr reverted your mass cuts on the consensus of 5 editors so the article sourcing could be worked on collaboratively and improved. That is proceeding. Your interference is WP:DE. --Chetvorno^TALK 23:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. I never complained about addition of sources. I did, however, revert the restoration of uncited information to articles.

Five editors who get together on a talk page to decide that they don't have to adhere to WP:NOR, WP:V, et al, is not a "consensus". The consensus of the editing community is reflected in its policy pages, as stated here. Consensus discussions on talk pages must be predicated on interpreting those policies, not ignoring them. I debunked all of your fallacy-riddled arguments, and your m.o. was to go silent, just as you did above when I politely asked you why you wrote the radio article without sources. Nightscream (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Qubic experiment

Hello, you added a paragraph in this article that is not complete [6]. Could you finish it, please?

Thanks --Roberto Fiadone (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Radio waves systems

I suggest that Radio waves should be improved in better way you know because that would make More strong Radio waves 41.115.34.138 (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clock signal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flip-flop.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pendulum clock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Clement.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Two-way radio

Hi. Please do not delete content based on your personal stated knowledge, as you did with this edit to two-way radio. Since you've accumulated over 62,000 edits here since 2006, probably know by now that violates Wikipedia's prohibition on original research, verifiability, et al. If see what you believe to be information in an article that can be corrected by way of citations of sources that are of equal or superior reliability to the ones supporting that information in the article, then please fix it by adding that information, and those citations. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive edits. In your last two edits to the two-way radio article, you first added an unneeded defition for a words that is already wikilinked with this edit, and in the second edit, you removed a citation for the definition of the article subject, without providing any rationale for this in your edit summary, which consisted merely of the word "Copyedit".

If you continue to perform these disruptive edits, and ignore attempts at discussion, I'll be forced to contact an administrator to have you blocked from editing. Please do not make that necessary. If you believe you disagree with this, then discuss it with me. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

This is the last time I will warn you about violating WP:NOR. The next time you introduce information in an article that is not found in the cited source, or make other disruptive edits, as you did with this edit to two-way radio, I will contact an administrator about having you blocked for this.

Articles throughout Wikipedia include important information as part of the lede summary that may not be found in the article body. If you believe that the information, such as the explanatory definition in the two-way article, is not salient enough to include in the lede, then please present your arguments for that viewpoint. If you agree that it is indeed so salient, then the solutio to comply with MOS:INTRO is to include it in the article body, not remove it from the lede. Nightscream (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I gave my arguments in the edit summary: mainly MOS:INTRO, but I'd be glad to put them on Talk. In case you didn't notice, the removed content was moved to the article body. This is simply an editorial disagreement, you are the only editor supporting the original content, repeatedly reverting a change supported by a consensus of Fountains of Bryn Mawr and myself. Why haven't you given your own reasons on the Talk page? Crossing into WP:HUSH here. --Chetvorno^TALK 07:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Two editors is not a "consensus". But thanks for openly engaging in that type of sophistry. It makes it much easier to point out your dishonesty and manipulation to admins. Nightscream (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure it is. There's no specific number that makes a consensus. It's not a counting of votes but a weighing of arguments, and if only two people are discussing a topic, they can sure enough come to a consensus. It happens all the time. Same with three, or four, or ten thousand... It's all dependent on the people involved. Now, I don't know about this particular disagreement, but from reading the talk page you seem to be looking for specific wording to be found in sources before we can use that wording. But we can't just copy a source word for word, so that position doesn't make sense to me. We have to read the sources, understand the meaning, and then give our own translation of that meaning in our own words. Of course, I don't know the whole story behind this, and there seems to be a lot more going on underneath the surface than meets the eye to generate this kind of hostility over what seems to be a rather minor disagreement, so I may not be understanding this fully. That's just a general statement based on what little I was able to glean from the talk page, and I really don't understand the reasoning and logic behind the dispute itself. Zaereth (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hi Chet. I just wanted to take this time to say thanks for all you do here to improve our electronics and other such articles. Your efforts are much appreciated. I wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Zaereth (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Zaereth! How is Alaska this time of year? Thanks for the Christmas shoutout, sorry I didn't see it. Cheers --Chetvorno^TALK 00:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Snowy and cold. Actually, snowy and unseasonably warm for this time of year, but the days are getting longer and longer. The sun is now up when I drive to work in the morning, which is good because I'm getting tired of the dark. How are things on your side of the planet? No worries. It has been a busy year for everyone it seems, and I was only able to get to a small number of people this year. Take care, and have a nice day. Zaereth (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Notice of multiple errors in the cage aerial talk page.

This is fair warning that I've rudely pointed out several places that you put false claims in the Cage antenna talk page, and undiplomatically labeled them as wrong: The errors appear to all arise from you conflating unipoles with vertical cage antennas. They're different. Please stop it. For the refutation of the mistakes, see the talk page. I'll reply there instead of on this page, to keep the issue open to others who might have been led astray.
— Astro-Tom-ical (K7TLI) (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Electric Field Energy

Gooday. Thanks for the page number on Griffiths. I have a different edition. Could you possibly give me the chapter and section. I am still a little dubious, given Jackson's derivation which took a whole lot more into consideration. Constant314 (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Sure, it's Chapter 8 Conservation Laws, section 8.1.2 Poynting's theorem. The derivation is immediately after the equation. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is pretty much what Jackson says. However, the text added to the article says "The above formula is derived by computing the work necessary to assemble the charge/current distribution in question." That is not at all what either Jackson or Griffiths says. They consider the work done on a distribution of charges within a volume. There is nothing about assembling a charge/current distribution. Maybe I am misinterpreting. Constant314 (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, yeah, the derivation isn't after the equation. In my book, in the text immediately above the equation he references the derivation of the first term to section 2.4.5 "Energy of a continuous charge distribution", which is a generalization of the preceding sections in which he derives the potential energy of a point charge distribution from the work expended moving the charges from infinity, then expressing the energy as a function of the electric field. He refers the second term to section 7.2.4 "Energy in magnetic fields" in which he derives the energy stored in an inductive circuit by integrating the work done by the current from zero current, as a function of the magnetic field. I guess that could loosely be described as "assembling the charge/current distribution in question". But I have no objection to deleting the sentence. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I have seen that assembling charge business applied to deriving the total energy in a static electric field. Constant314 (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, he presents that derivation in Sections 2.4.1, 2, and 3 of Chapter 2, Electrostatics. It seems to me it might only apply under electrostatic conditions; if the particles are not moved very slowly they will radiate away some of the energy. The magnetic field derivation seems more artificial, since it was derived only for currents in a circuit. Again it would seem to apply only to magnetostatics; the energy is calculated by integrating the product of voltage and current across an inductor in an RL circuit as the current is increased from zero to a final value. If the current is not increased very slowly the circuit will act as a loop antenna and radiate some of the energy. I guess if you assume that the energy density is a function of the field strength alone, it doesn't matter how the E or B field was created. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That is the whole reason we have the fields. It lets us ignore the details of the sources. Constant314 (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Great point --Chetvorno^TALK 00:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

A picture for you: A guassian pulse in a parallel plate transmission line

Some inspiration for you. Do you see the loop of current propagating down the TL?

Red – current density, green – (positive) charge density, copper – conductor, light blue – E field intensity, dark blue – E field, dash – displacement current, black – direction of propagation, white arrow – conventional current direction,

Constant314 (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure --Chetvorno^TALK 14:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)