Jump to content

User talk:Light current

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Android79 (talk | contribs) at 21:22, 17 September 2005 (WP:CSD). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please post new messages to the TOP of my talk page (but below this notice)


Greetings!

Always nice to have a stimulating but civil discussion!!

(People just wont believe I have all day and night to discuss (and edit)-- must get out more)!

Please use headlines when starting new topics -----------Thank you---------

WP:CSD

Please review WP:CSD. Ciales, Puerto Rico and Cottesloe railway station, Perth are not candidates for speedy deletion, as far as I can tell. If you want them deleted, please list them at WP:AFD. Thanks, android79 21:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bearden

Dang! I was hoping you wouldn't take the bait. That tells me what I needed to know. On the other hand, you did ask nicely so here goes: I'm attempting to earn my Ph.D. the old fashioned way. Tom Bearden earned his 'Ph.D.' via a diploma mill. That tells me that the man is dishonest [1]. Also, I've read some of his ideas on his web site and what I've read appears to me to be words strung together without any meaning. Further, take a look at the Bedini clarifier [2] and the Fogal transistor [3] and of course, Dr. Myron Evans' O3 electrodynamics [4]. All of these people are connected with Mr. Bearden. I suppose the most successful is Mr. Bedini but then again, he markets his products to people willing to pay $10,000 a foot for power cords for their stereos [5]. Maybe he's the smartest guy after all! Alfred Centauri 02:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crankism

Really all this should tell you, AC is that I'm a curious fellow (in the information seeking sense). I'm not a lover of or believer in cranks. The only thing I would say is that some apparently crankish ideas turn out to be true. (special & general relativity etc). The scientific community, like many others does not like to be challenged on its dearly held views, hence the labelling of those who do challenge them as cranks. Also, those who only propose new ideas due to ignorance (I guess that includes most of us) should not be labelled cranks as long as they do not persist in thier erroneous ideas once they have been proven wrong. Yes thats it: A crank is someone who persists in peddling his ideas, once he has been proven wrong. So if you want to call me (or any one else) a crank, prove me or them wrong, and then see if they shut up or retract or modify their statements. I shall not be looking any further at Mr Beardens site (barring your links above). BTW regarding Ivor Catt (real PhD from Cambridge I think), it has yet to be shown whether he is a crank or not by my above definition of crank. I still have an open mind on this.

Flux and charge

"According to Gauss' Law, electric flux is equal to charge which is measured in Coulombs." Nope. Electric flux is e-field integrated over a surface, and e-field does not "equal" charge. The only time that electric flux is directly connected to electric charge is when we measure the *net* flux extending through the *entire area* of a *closed* surface (such as a sphere) which contains charge. If the closed surface contains zero charge, then the flux summed over the whole surface is zero, even though the flux at any region on the sphere need not be zero. If we measure the flux of an arbitrary piece of that surface, or measure the flux of any area bounded by a closed curve, in that case flux isn't proportional to charge. --Wjbeaty 01:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The closed surface integral of the e-field is the total charge enclosed over the permittivity of the medium. It is the closed surface integral of the electric flux density (D) that is equal to the charge enclosed (in coulombs). A non-conservative e-field or d-field integrated over a closed surface is identically zero (the divergence of the curl is identically zero...). However, a closed contour integral of the e-field is non-zero only if the e-field is non-conservative (the curl of the gradient is identically zero...). Stationary charge creates a conservative field. Accelerated charge (a changing electric current) generates a non-conservative component of the e-field ([E = -(gradV + dA/dt]). Alfred Centauri 03:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Electronics

I am wondering if we should start a WikiProject for Electronics. What do you think? User:Omegatron/sig 00:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting idea! Possibly. Im just wondering whether it may inertfere with electrical engineering. Shall we put the suggestion on the appropriate page for comments?--Light current 01:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is one? I didn't see it. User:Omegatron/sig 02:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Possibly not. Youll have to create one somewhere!--Light current 03:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Returning your comment

Hi,
Thanks for the comment on my talk page, but I have no idea what issue you're talking about. --Smack (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I remember now. Articles with extensive introductory material indeed require a special section to hold this content. However, according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, we should have a lead section. This section can be up to three paragraphs long in some cases, according to the Manual. Though Electromagnet is certainly not one of these cases, I think it's clearly entitled to a two-sentence heading-free intro. I've watchlisted your talk page; you can reply here. Alternatively, we can take this to Talk:Electromagnet. --Smack (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on this subject is presently underway at WikiProject:Science. I suggest all comments be put there--Light current 23:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flux capacitor on Talk:Capacitor

Put it on BJAODN, and then you may delete. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article format

I notice that you have put a heading called "Definition" before the lead-in paragraph in the inductance article. I'd like you to reconsider, please, because you are making the article inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia (unless you plan to edit the other 600,000 articles). I checked the Manual of Style (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Sections), which states that the lead section should come before the first headline. Otherwise, people have to scroll down before they get to something they can read. As the Manual says, no one can force you to obey these rules, but you shouldn't break them unless you have a really good reason. See also Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Lead_section and Wikipedia:Lead_section. Thanks. --Heron 19:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons are as follows:

I think that, for science and technology articles (only), a definition of what is being described in the article below is essential. For instance if we the had the definition in the first place, a great deal of irrelevant material would not be added in inappropriate places and the page would assume the correct structure much earlier. A short sharp definition at the start, rather than a long rambling discourse is, to me , to be preffered. This can be followed with a gentler introduction for those readers who want to find out more.

Also, I think that, especially when there is rather a large lead in para, as in some of the electrical/electronics articles, it makes the page look bad with the contents box near the bottom of the page. I am not suggesting that we do this on all articles, but only in the scientific/engineering ones.

I have put a comment on WikiProject science for this to be discussed.THanks for your interest in this proposal.--Light current 19:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will add some comments to that page. --Heron 20:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page format

You realize that most people push the plus link at the top of the page in order to create a new section, and that it automatically puts the new section at the bottom, right? This is the way talk pages are "supposed" to be used. You don't have to, of course. You can do whatever you want. But that's what the software is tailored for, and someone using the software in that way will never see this section telling them not to. User:Omegatron/sig 16:05, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes., but I like to be awkward (as you may have noticed in the past) :-)

I think that when you push the plus link at the top of the page in order to create a new section that it should automatically put the new section at the TOP. Far more sensible (like archeology,isnt it?) Anyway nice to see youre still around 'O'. We all thought you had left the planet!'

Ah. I thought maybe that was it. :-) Just don't get mad at people if they do things the typical way by accident. Yeah, I am still around, just not paying as much attention to a lot of those articles. You and Alpha seem to have it under control. Also have a little bit more real life distracting me lately (for once). User:Omegatron/sig 21:41, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Presumably you mean Alfred Centauri. Also I dont get mad, I just get even! Anyway welcome back! ;-)--Light current 06:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Answer to Life the Universe and Everything

is not 42 it is ZERO. (everything in the end adds up to zero) This is NOT a topic for discussion

Newtons Apple

See Talk:inductance

Relativity

moved to Talk:inductance

LC Duality

LC: Whilst mowing my yard, I was thinking about this LC duality outside of circuit theory etc. etc. and I think I've hit upon a new (for me) insight that took my breath away. I'm sure you've written some comments on the talk pages since I last looked at them but before I spend some time digesting those, I want to write down the duality I hit upon this afternoon. I'll be hashing it out in my sandbox. Alfred Centauri 19:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LC: Thanks for the link. I just arrived home from the store and, on the way home, I was thinking about how to construct an electric inductor. What I was thinking of is very similar to figures 14 and 15 of the link you referred to on my talk page. My reasoning was as follows:

Since magnetic charge isn't handy, the only form of magnetic current we can put our hands on is the magnetic flux current. We can generate this magnetic current in a number of ways such as with a changing electric current or with moving magnets. We can channel this current with a coil of hi-mu 'wire'. There should then be an fairly intense electric field inside the coil. If we put some high permittivity material inside the coil as a core, the electric flux in the core will be very large. The ratio of this electric flux to the magnetic current is the electric inductance of this device and it is measured in farads! INTERESTING!!! Alfred Centauri 15:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LC:I'm glad you think it is interesting. I don't think there is any problem with 'publishing' this perspective on inductance and capactance on my user page. I recently sent an e-mail to Bill pointing out that he had used the term 'current flow' on one of his web pages and that, since he has himself admonished others for such redundancy, would probably want to fix this. I think I'll take your advice and send him an e-mail regarding my inductance ideas. Thanks for the idea! Alfred Centauri 16:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Negligible/Negligibility

Technically, both of these don't belong on Wikipedia, as they'd only really amount to dictionary definitions; they ought to be on Wiktionary. As negligibility is the property of being negligible, it makes more sense to redirect to that, if they are to remain. Rob Church Talk | Desk 19:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Light_current,

I stumbled across your recent discussions with Omegatron this morning and remembered my own personal battles with some of the concepts you have been grappling with (particularly for me it was the op-amp concept of a 'virtual earth' - that was decades ago when the 741 was 'hi tech'!). So I started this new article, which I hope will help. I've linked it into some of the relevant places. Maybe it'll help you if you can consolidate some of your thoughts into it, maybe simplify some of the other articles a bit and then link it out from some relevant places?

Just trying to help. --Nigelj 13:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But 'negligibility' can be redirected to 'negligible' can it not? - Abolutely, yes, feel free --Nigelj 19:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second tagline poll - please follow this link

(This is already anounced on Pump and Rfc but I'm adding it here because you contributed to the proposal main page and talk page.) Thanks! -- Sitearm | Talk 05:34, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions on the tagline update proposal page! -- Sitearm | Talk 03:20, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

Output is a verb

out·put (out'pʊt') pronunciation

tr.v., -put·ted or -put, -put·ting, -puts.

To produce or manufacture (something) during a certain time.

:-) User:Omegatron/sig 23:47, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Drawing Packages to try

There is no best drawing package.  :-) Different people use different things. The only requirement is that photographic images are in jpeg format and diagrams and such are in png format. See Wikipedia:Graphics tutorials, User:Omegatron#Electronics diagrams, Wikipedia:How to create graphs for Wikipedia articles. I use the GIMP, Inkscape, and Klunky, as described on my userpage. - Omegatron 22:57, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Power factor correction

Please check out power factor correction. Am I missing something or is this article totally off base? - Omegatron 16:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Hi there. I noticed your recent contributions to various electrical-related articles that are on my watchlist and they look good. These articles, being rather specialist in nature to write, get insufficient attention. This is unfortunate since they are also, imo, the kind of articles that students and the like will frequently pick up from Google etc. You evidently know your stuff so it's good all round to have you on board.

I did notice the odd message and/or edit summary that strayed a little from the usual mellow tones of discussion. Without wanting to be so heavy handed as to list them here, or cite policy and other drudgery at you, can I just give you a friendly nudge in the direction of general all-round nice-itude? It always surprises me that we have so many knowledgeable people who can find the time to write here. But to suggest that they might be wilfully unhelpful, or slightly inept, or remedial will only drive them away and then we'd be much the worse off for it. So just sort of generally think twice before pressing the "save" button: would you have said the same thing to the real person if they were standing there in front of you?, etc.

Anyway - happy editing, and I imagine we'll see each other around! -Splash 01:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New pages

No sweat. I've removed the dicdef notice. So, have fun! - Lucky 6.9 22:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I AM CALM!!!!1!!!
:-) Honestly, I am getting somewhat stressed since you arrived. I understand your motives and you have a lot of good knowledge to contribute, but we obviously clash on what's appropriate info to include, and I feel like I have to closely follow all your edits to make sure you're not breaking anything. (And your enthusiasm and spending lots of time on here is great, and I'm glad you're contributing so much, but now I'm spending a lot more time on here than I normally would trying to keep up.)  :-)
No, I know about varistors. I was explaining to you that it's a common misunderstanding so this "unconfusing" statement belongs in the article. Please read my comments again and you'll understand. - Omegatron 17:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Impedance matching

Can you direct your enthusiasm towards Impedance matching and Maximum power theorem?

I figure we should make impedance matching a pseudo-disambig page, which contains the general information, lists a short description of the different types (reflectionless, maximum power, comp sci term, etc.) with Main article: links to maximum power theorem and reflectionless impedance matching and anything else that deserves its own article, and then split the detailed stuff and examples to the appropriate articles.

The other alternative is to make impedance matching refer to only the reflectionless kind and split out the maximum power stuff to the other article. Not sure what to do with the comp sci terminology in this case... - Omegatron 14:17, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

You added "Impedance matching for minimizing reflections and maximising power transfer over a large bandwidth (also called reflectionless matching or broadband matching) is the most commonly used.", which is blending two different ideas together. Please don't do that. I wanted you to separate the ideas, not confuse them. Please see my comments on the talk page. If you don't understand the difference between the two concepts, please do some research before further editing. Thanks for your help. - Omegatron 19:11, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Relevance of reference to 'VARISTOR'

Why are we keeping the comment on Varistors in here? THis page is complicated enough as it is and a varistor in Nothing to do with pots (not that I ve heard of). Can we remove it please without tantrums & tears??? Comments pleaseLight current 02:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave it. A varistor is not a potentiometer. - Omegatron 04:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

THere are many things that are NOT potentiometers, but we do not mention those do we? (thank God). Unfortunately, this is the way articles get confused(by irrelevant additions). If someone wants to mention varistor, it should be in a page on resistors as a special type. Just cos the word may sound remotely similar(both words have a 't' and an 'r' at the end) does not mean that they have to be differentiated here. I vote this entry is moved to resistors. Light current 12:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just following your example, O. Anyway we are not wasting electrons. See the page on capacitor operation. I never said it was long but it will be when I have added all the omissions! Light current 13:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From your last comment ,O, it seems that you may be thinking that a 'varistor' has something to do with 'variable resistor'. It is NOT a user variable resistor (like a pot). It is in fact a voltage variable resistor and usually operates on semiconductor principles giving a non linear resistance against applied voltage. It is not a very good name for the device, I admit, but we are stuck with that. It is therfore completely out of place on the Potentiometer page. Lets move it to the resistor page where it would fit better(not perfectly, but better). I once again refer you to Uncle Albert's maxim :-) Light current 13:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WE KNOW THAT. THAT'S WHY THIS SENTENCE IS ON THE PAGE.
iT SAYS... *ahem* ... It says "although the term "varistor" sounds like it might refer to a variable resistor, varistors are not the same thing". It's a helpful statement for people who might be confused, as you have just admitted is a common misunderstanding. Why would you want to delete that? Did you actually read the sentence before deleting it?? - Omegatron 15:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Keep calm., O. You know its not good for your blood pressure to get too excited!!(HAL: Take stress pill Dave..). In this case, since the term 'varistor' has a link ,appears in braces, etc I am happy(ish) to let it remain. BTW I didnt say it was a 'common misunderstanding' , I just sain that you appeared to be confused by the term.:-) Light current 17:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with a single line mentioning varistor? As for the article being complicated, I don't think it is. Disorganized, perhaps. It's not even a very long article. --ssd 10:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of thing that are not variable resistors. I think a term that sounds like a contraction of "variable resistor" will cause a little more confusion than, say, a pie plate. I think it is more useful than not, and can't believe we're spending these many electrons talking about a single, short, insignificant sentence. It was probably added by someone who was confused by the issue, and I'm sure there are others out there.
Yes, the article is disorganized now. Deleting a single, relevant sentence won't help that at all.
And no, it's not long at all. - Omegatron 12:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Editing problems

The page is not blocked and can't be blocked without protecting it. I've just edited it and reverted myself with no problems whatsoever. It must be a problem on your end. Try refreshing your cache (ctrl+reload or ctrl+F5 or whatever). That sometimes fixes things like that. - Omegatron 16:59, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
And when you talk about an article like Potentiometer on a talk page, please make it a link so we don't have to type it in by hand. - Omegatron 17:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I moved your sandbox to User:Light current/My Sandbox, since it has to be in your userspace. - Omegatron 17:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Breakdown

Breakdown voltage in air at STP is approximately 3kV/mm or 30kV/cm assuming reasonably large electrodes. Light current 00:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I added it to Electrical breakdown yesterday. - Omegatron 13:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Current sources

I was I who blanked that last paragraph because it just does not make any sense. (I had forgotten to log in). I dont know what the writer is trying to say here-- do you??Light current 13:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean it doesn't make sense? They are saying that a current mirror can be used as a current source by mirroring the constant current through a resistor. - Omegatron 14:12, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ive read it again and I still cant make any sense of it. What chance will a newbie have? I dont know what is meant by the term 'sensor' and how it relates to a different type of current source (which is what the para implies). Can you illuminate me some more?Light current 14:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete things because you don't understand them. Work to improve them so that other people can understand. Yes, the wording needs to be changed. So we'll change it. - Omegatron 14:38, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
In the future, when you feel like deleting something (other than obvious vandalism or nonsense), please copy and paste it to the talk page and mention why you deleted it, or better yet, ask on the talk page if it should be deleted in the first place. - Omegatron 15:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, to me, the para that YOU have just deleted (thanks) DID seem like utter nonsense beacause it did not make any sense to me. There are many pages I have come across that have similar very confused entries or paragraphs ( I you wrote it, I'm sorry) which are more confusing than helpful to the readers of this encyclopaedia and can lead To Wikipedia being given a bad name. If it comes to a chioce between utterly confusing the reader and deleting the offending paragraph-- I vote for deletion. BTW I dont delete things that are outside my sphere of knowledge or common sense without asking opinions of others. Hope this explains my actionsLight current 16:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but I didn't delete the paragraph. I modified it. There is still a link to current mirror and a mention of the connection between the two, but the description is more accurate now. I understand deletionist tendencies, but I think it is more important to fix things than to destroy useful information. If you don't have time to fix it, just leave it and someone else will fix it eventually, or move it to the talk page and say it needs work. Yes, the information is still in the history, but most editors will not know to look for it. It's more important to keep articles tied together so that they don't become orphan articles and get ignored and stay in a state of poor quality. In the future, please move things like this to the talk page instead of deleting them. - Omegatron 18:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that you modified the para (but very substantially) which is what I intended to do-- its just that I could see nothing that could be done with the para except delete. I admit I was wrong to remove the link and apologise for that its just that I thought the surrouding text was totally confusing, not only to me but surely to others as well. I'm sure you agree with that.Anyway it seems that we are now on the right track in improving this article but I think it needs its own copy of the current mirror diagram here rather than being linked to. What do you think??Unfortunately I do not know yet how to copy diagrams from one page to another. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction?Regards Light current 19:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the paragraph warranted deletion, but I'm glad you're willing to cooperate.
For the image, just copy the image markup (the first line) from the current mirror page. - Omegatron 19:10, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking about the op-amp current. - Omegatron 21:39, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Electrical discharge

"In non uniform fields, various manifestations of luminous and audible discharges are observed long before complete breakdown takes place. These discharges may be transient or steady state and are known as coronas" p371 Sect 5.11.

You can also have continuous coronas without complete breakdown. It depends a lot on the geometry of the conductors. - Omegatron

More on arcs & sparks nex month when I find the refs.:-)Light current 23:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That would be a great help. I've found a few, as I listed on that talk page. In fact, I just cracked open my Encyclopedia of Physics to the Static Electricity article, with some info about corona and such... - Omegatron 23:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's what the extract says. You dont need complete breakdown to have corona. I'm sure you can have it all the time where it will cause untold damage to insulators etc and create a great deal of #RF interference.Light current 23:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

But they glow! And they're cool! Stop being so negative.  :-) - Omegatron

Just having had quick look at my college notes, I see that an arc is defined as a negative resistance breakdown in the gas through which it travels. In a low pressure gas discharge tube with only weak ionisation of the atoms,the arc region is defined at currents of about 10A. I am sure, though, that in atmoshpheric pressure air, arcs of much lower currrent can occur. Whether these are visible I do not know. I have seen 1 kA arcs but not sure if ive seen 1A arcs. Hope this is Helpful. Sparks are more difficult to define I think. More info as I find it. :-) Light current 23:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Things like Van de Graaff generators create low-current arcs all the time, no? One reference I read said that a spark and an arc are the same thing, but a spark is momentary (static electricity) and an arc is continuous (high voltage source). - Omegatron 23:55, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, actually they might be high-current, but very short in duration. - Omegatron 23:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you were to put your finger close enough to the dome of a Van de Graaf Generator (VGG) charged to 100kV ,say, then you would probably draw a (painful) arc through the air your body to ground. If you (sensibly) keep your finger and other objects well away then it is probably just going to create a corona discharge which I believe is more visible in the UV than the visible (but if you turn out the lights you may see a faint glow so they say!). Whether it does or doesn't, corona depends on the voltage to which the dome is charged, and the shape of the dome. Sharper edges are liable to cause corona at a lower voltage. When testing HV cables at work we always put 'anti corona' discs on the exposed end of the conductor to avoid this.

You mean you haven't built one??  :-) Yes, you get corona from sharp edges (like holding a screwdriver and bringing the other end close to it), which is visible as a purple glow, and if you use a smooth round surface to touch it (holding a mixing bowl and bringing it close) you get sparks, which glow more of a white color (and hurt more). You don't have to be grounded to draw a spark; the charge imbalance between you and the generator will still try to equal out. - Omegatron

As to sparks, my memory has just been jogged and /'I THINK (dont quote me on this one yet) that the term 'spark' strictly speaking has nothing to do with breakdown of the air, but is merely the melting and heating to white heat of the conductor material ( say you put your screw driver across your car battery terminals ( dont!!) then the result would be sparks. You wouldnt get an arc cos the voltage is too low. It needs more than ~ 120v (I think) to create an arc in air at 1 Atm. Hope this is useful. Any questions I will try to answer. :-) Light current 00:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is another meaning of the word, which is somewhat alluded to in the "ember" bit on spark. But something like a spark plug obviously creates a short-lived arc, and melting and vaporization of the material to red-hot is undesirable. I think it applies to both concepts. Spark, actually, applies to pretty much all of these concepts from a colloquial standpoint. - Omegatron 00:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  1.  An incandescent particle, especially:
        1. One thrown off from a burning substance.
        2. One resulting from friction.
        3. One remaining in an otherwise extinguished fire; an ember.
  2. A glistening particle, as of metal.
  3.
        1. A flash of light, especially a flash produced by electric discharge.
        2. A short pulse or flow of electric current.
  6. Electricity.
        1. The luminous phenomenon resulting from a disruptive discharge through an insulating material.
        2. The discharge itself.
And this book refers to "sparkover voltage". - Omegatron 01:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I still think "arc" = continuous, "spark" = momentary is the right definition.

"arc, in electricity, highly luminous and intensely hot discharge of electricity between two electrodes. The arc was discovered early in the 19th cent. by the English scientist Sir Humphry Davy, who so named it because of its shape. An arc is characterized by a high current, low voltage, and indefinite duration." - a real encyclopedia :-) just the phrase "drawing an arc" gives me that impression. - Omegatron 01:42, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Lead-acid batterys for cars are 12 V. There are probably 6 V ones for weird cars and motorcycles, too. Go ask google. What country are you from? - Omegatron 02:11, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

No, that is the English spelling also. So you are American I assume?. Just that some poor user just got it wrong. I don't think it was me. but i'm sure you'll tell me if it was :)) Light current 20:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Policy is to use the dialect most appropriate to the article, and if none is appropriate, use the dialect of the first major contributor. - Omegatron 20:46, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
I was not implying that I don't like 'Anmericans'. In fact I quite do (in small doses). Don't take everything so seriously :))Light current 20:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure what you're talking about, but don't worry; I don't like most 'mericans, either, and I live here... :-) - Omegatron 20:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Compensator

Would you care to look at the Volatge source page and click the link to compensator and let me know whether you think this is an appropriate link to be included on a page about voltage sources. If its not to be deleted, what do you suggest doing with it?? The word compensator is , I believe , a word used in Control Engineering (although I may be wrong ). Anyway it is not used widely (if at all) in electronic circuitry (or is it??)

It definitely should not be deleted. In this case, we will change compensator into a disambiguation page that shows the two meanings. - Omegatron 18:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Bias servo

I replied on Talk:Voltage_source#Class AB Amplifier biassing - Omegatron 16:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


Short-circuited voltage source

I moved our discussion over to Talk:Voltage source so others can see it. - Omegatron 20:00, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Having pondered this question over a few pints of fizzy coloured liquid, I now see that we are BOTH RIGHT and BOTH WRONG at the same time. I'm afraid that we have both fallen into the trap of considering the paradox of the Irresitible Force against the Immovable Object. Neither can win. Neither of us can win. What we need here is a compromise solution that is satisfactory to everyone. I think the clue lies in your statement that both an ideal voltage source AND a perfect short circuit cannot exist. In fact I believe that neither can exist. Hence, we are conducting a sterile argument. I think that the way out of this is to say that an ideal voltage source (or current source for that matter) cannot exist so it is pointless talking abut what happens when they are open or short circuited. We must remove the reference to ideal voltage or current sources that involve calculations of load power from the definitions of voltage source and current source. Is this acceptable to you??:)Light current 22:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly it. Neither an ideal voltage source (where the voltage across it is always 5 V, for instance) nor an ideal short circuit (where the voltage is always 0 V) can actually exist, and if they did, you couldn't connect them together or the universe would explode, since you are essentially saying that 5 is equal to 0. They are still useful concepts, though, so we take the limit of the power as the resistance gets smaller, and see that it approaches infinity. I changed the wording in voltage source to say this. I will finish changing current source in a bit. Do you like the new wording? - Omegatron 23:03, August 3, 2005 (UTC)


Wiki Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Light current, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Ragib 06:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Please Dont Put it Down Here - I dont look here very often

Please put your post at the top

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Light_current&oldid=23413743"