User talk:Wtshymanski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've used the Wikipedia often - this week I've decided to write some contributions. It seems that filling in articles for red links is a good place to start. --Wtshymanski 02:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And I've been Wiki-ing for one year! --Wtshymanski 21:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Thanks 2 Reversion of Electrical engineering 3 Radio propagation 4 Leakage inductance picture request 5 Winnipeg Folk Festival 6 Edits to Transformer- pleas get your facts right before attempting to edit this page 7 Oakbank 8 Azad Hall 9 Electrical and electronics engineering redirect 10 Overloads 11 vga needs more wires than 9?! 12 Transformer as FAC? 13 Diagram for Generator 14 Branchlists considered harmful 15 Where does a kwh wind up? 16 TfD nomination of Template:Branchlist 17 Talk:Springfield, Manitoba 18 MI Cable 19 Trip to Flin Flon 20 Energy portal 21 FRS / GMRS 22 Comb-out 23 Two-way radio 24 revert at plc

[edit] Thanks

Bill,

Thanks for the help. It's really a boost to have someone else edit articles I'm working on -- in a positive direction.

I'm fascinated by the electric power industry. One thing I'd like to see, and don't know enough to write, is an explanation of how grids are controlled, how they go unstable, how they are made stable, and so on. Could you do that, or can you point me at good reading material that would make it possible for me to do that?

Iain McClatchie 22:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of Electrical engineering

Could you outline your reasons for wanting to retain the image of some people sitting infront of a black board. Can you say what information it provides to the readers? Can you justify its retention on this already oversized page?--Light current 19:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Radio propagation

Not by conduction? what? ... this is from a radio book .... I'll try to refind it. BUT .... Radio propagation is made by electrical conduction through a transmission medium. On the earth, electrical conduction in a media. In space, it is a vacuum. Sincerely, JDR

Sorry, don't think so. When the Mars rovers transmit back to Earth, there's no stream of electrically charged particles travelling through vacuum - it's the naked electromagnetic wave that does the propagating. Check your references very closely as this statement is at variance from what I was taught. --Wtshymanski 15:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Read free space for now. I'll get the reference later. JDR 15:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Nothing in that article should be read to imply that EM waves propagate by electrical conduction. Rather, the reverse: the propagation of EM waves in a vacuum is modeled by assuming that no matter (including electrons) is required for propagation of the wave. In most circumstances, this approximation is more than accurate enough, because the miniscule amounts of matter in a good vacuum have no significant effect on EM wave propagation. Even air at atmospheric pressure has little effect on the propagation of radio waves.--Srleffler 23:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah but the question is, do you need displacement current to flow in the ether for radio transmission to exist? If so, JDR may be right!--Light current 03:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Displacement current is not conduction. --Wtshymanski 03:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Not strictly speaking no. But it causes a magnetic field does it not? So how is it different from conduction in this argument?--Light current 03:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Displacement current is not conduction. The erroneous statement in the article said that radio propagation relied on conduction. This is not correct. --Wtshymanski 03:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

OK only trying to make converstation--Light current 03:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leakage inductance picture request

OK, let me see what I can produce. It may take a little while, though. Regards, BillC 19:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said, it took a while...  :-) But there's now an image at leakage inductance. Was this the sort of thing you had in mind? I found it easier to draw the contours of constant magnetic vector potential rather than broad lines representing flux as I had done in the first drawing. --BillC 16:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit to add: I think we could do with an equivalent circuit diagram on that article now. Something to show the series leakage reactance in both primary and secondary circuits. Do you have access to a package that draws circuits? --BillC 19:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Winnipeg Folk Festival

I notice you did an edit on the above. I hope someone takes this article on and expands it as my memories of the Festival are so much more. (I worked security there on a volunteer basis for a few years), Know anyone with some in depth insight? Just hoping... (Stormbay 18:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Edits to Transformer- pleas get your facts right before attempting to edit this page

As you are obviously unaware of analogies please refer to Dynamical Analogies by H.F Olson (pub Van Nostrand) regarding suitable analogies for transformers before reverting my gearbox inclusion again.

An analogy is only useful if it helps explain something - I usually find mechanical analogies for electrical phenomenona to be so strained that it's better just to explain the physics. The gearbox analogy I think would only baffle someone not conditioned to think in mechanical duals for every electrical phenomenon. It's weak because you must explain why so many mechanical variables such as torque, speed, etc. are like electrical quantities...might as well just explain the --Wtshymanski 22:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, please do not refer to non rotation as an essential prerequisite for transformers. If you think all transformers are static, you dont understand transformers. Quote from page:

Rotating transformers are designed so that one winding turns while the other remains stationary. A common use was the video head system as used in VHS and Beta video tape players. These can pass power or radio signals from a stationary mounting to a rotating mechanism, or radar antenna. Please use your eyes! --Light current 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

IEEE Std 100 defines a transformer as a "static" device which is the very word I had in this article several months ago. If it's good enough for IEEE, it's good enough for me. If rotation is essential to the energy transfer, then the device is *not* a transformer and must be some kind of motor or generator. Look at the design of the coupling transformer you refer to - I haven't dismantled my old VCR (yet) but you will find that the design of the coupling very carefully *cancels* the effect of the rotation - else all the video signals would be modulated by the frequency of the mechanical rotation. I'm also aware of synchro transformers and self-regulating constant-current transformers, both of which have moving coils but the motion of the coils is *not* used to transfer energy from primary to secondary circuit. It would be very nice when repeating the reverts to consider that your fellow editors just *may* know what they are talking about after all. I see you've backed off on your statements about stranded windings and losses due to leakage flux - by the time you finish with this article you will have gotten quite a good education on transformers. You really must book a tour through a transformer manufacturing plant some time - preferably one that makes transformers bigger than you can lift. --Wtshymanski 22:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I didnt say rotation was essential to the operation of a transformer. If the word 'static' is used in the definition (lead para) it gives the impression that rotating transformers do not exist, (which they obviously do). That is why I removed the reference to no moving parts. Thats all!

With regard to stranded wire usage, you will recall that months ago, the article was trumpeting the fact that Litz wire is used in HV power transformers and no one could come up with a reference to say that it was. In the light of this lack of evidence, I recently removed the mention of litz wire. Now, if you have evidence that Litz wire is used in HV transformers, lets see it and I will be happy to see the statement reinserted in the article. I think you will agree that stranded conductor is not necessarily Litz wire (I believe Litz has round conductors for a start).

I hope the above explains my actions and apologise for any offence I may have caused you. --Light current 23:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Pleas remind me about losses due to leakage flux. I dont recall the discussion.--Light current 23:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oakbank

Just thought I'd let you know that there is a special template for adding coordinates to articles. I changed your coords to the template in this change. Tnikkel 01:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azad Hall

I removed your speedy deletion tag from Azad Hall as "non-notable" by itself is not a speedy criterion. Please read WP:CSD. Most administrators will apply the criteria fairly strictly. Thanks. (BTW, that article turned out to be a copyright violation.) howcheng {chat} 00:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but...Unremarkable people or groups. An article about a real person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. from WP:CSD.--Wtshymanski 00:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a dormitory, thus a building, and thus not speediable. Not to worry, though; as you do more and more of these, you'll figure out when they can be applied. howcheng {chat} 07:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electrical and electronics engineering redirect

Hi Wtshymanski,

There is a discussion on Talk:Electrical and electronics engineering on whether the article should be redirected to the electrical engineering article. Light current has identified a lack of consensus as a reason against the redirect, your input on the issue would therefore be very much appreciated.

Thanks for your time.

Cedars 23:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overloads

Bill, I saw where you put "crude temperature compensation for electric motors" in the relay article. Could you supply an example? I've seen klixons (a bi-metal domed disk) mounted in with the windings of the motor. Should the temperature of the windings climb above a pre-set limit, the klixon snaps to open a set of NC contacts in series to the overloads and removes power to the motor starter coil. A klixon wouldn't compensate for ambiant temperature. Almost all klixons are automatic. They reset when the motor temperature drops below the pre-set level. I have seen manual reset ones. Wm Seán Glen in Tacoma Seán 00:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

An overload relay is different - a Klixon or thermistor directly measures stator temperature, an overload relay approximates the heating effect on the stator by heating the relay internal mechanism (solder pot or bimetal strip). Overload heater tables such as those published by Allen Bradley state that if the motor is known to be in a higher ambient than the starter, a different overload heater is chosen. --Wtshymanski 18:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vga needs more wires than 9?!

and what would those wires be? i thought it just had h sync v sync red green blue and ground. that only makes 6! Plugwash 17:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, yes - many more wires. R,G,B each have their own grounds. There's a separate ground for synch. There's three or four bits of monitor ID, but later monitors have an SCI-type serial communication interface. If there was ever a VGA monitor and card built with only 9 pins, I'd like to see a reference for it. Google "VGA pinout" and you'll come up with lots of pinout diagrams, none of which show VGA associated with a 9-pin connector. --Wtshymanski 17:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transformer as FAC?

Transformer isn't a Featured Article (and I agree with you, it isn't ready for that). It would have to go through peer review and then FA candidacy. However, Image:Transformer3d col3.svg will be a featured picture of the day on the front page that day, and will contain a small into section taking the reader straight to the Transformer article. The plan for next month's front page Featured Pictures is at Wikipedia:Picture_of_the_day/April_2006. Apologies if I misled. --BillC 19:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diagram for Generator

Per your request on Talk:Transformer, I'll get onto the fundamental diagram as soon as I get the opportunity. In the meantime, perhaps you might be able to provide a link to an image or two on the internet that shows the particular concept you had in mind. Thanks! --BillC 13:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Gentle reminder. --BillC 22:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Was this the sort of concept you had in mind? --BillC 00:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Branchlists considered harmful

Please stop editing games. Please stop taunting comments such as your last on transformer. I find it objectionable when you make provoking statements like Thats 2 a piece-- wanna go for 3?. If you want to pick fights, go down to your local bar and leave serious editors alone.

Im not sure of what you are referring to as my taunting comment on transformer. Could you be more precise? You are the instigator and 'agent provacteur' in these so called games - not me. Look at the edit histories! you are the one who seems to want a fight. Unfortunately, I am a poor physical specimen unable to engage in actual fisticuffs. I just want to edit peacefully. If you want to stop my reversions. Stop yours. Simple!--Light current 22:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Branchlists are a bad idea. They are difficult to maintain since they require editing a template by hand. The branchlists I have seen have been of questionable relevancy to the articles on whose page they appear. Branchlists are ugly - they fill up space at the top of the article that is better used to convey useful information, not questionably-chosen "see also" topics. Branchlists are redundant, we already have categories which are *already* automatically maintained. Branchlists are redundant because relevant links can go in the body of the article, or in the "see also" section of the article where the user expects to find them. Branchlists are not well conceived as seen by the recent fiasco requiring wholesale renaming. If the idea had been discussed properly before bulling its way into the Wikipedia, perhaps so very many test edits would not have to be undone. If the proponents had listened to the objections, the idea would have been quite likely smothered as it should have been.

You are entitled to your opinion on branchlists but I fear you may be addressing the wrong person here. Its not my idea although I think its worth giving a try.--Light current 22:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I wish you'd spend your Wikipedia time constructively researching, editing and adding content instead of building these gratuitious monuments to ego. I see from your talk page that it's your history to be truculent and confrontational - this is inefficient as it wastes everyone's time.

Ahh... 'Truculent'. Thats a good juicy word. I must look it up. If it applies I might add it to my page. Confrontational when necessary -yes! One must tackle the issues face on! People who cannot defend their ideas cannot expect to be listened to. As to your wish:

I wish you'd spend your Wikipedia time constructively researching, editing and adding content

Please refer to my edit count and history and compare with your own. Ever heard of people in glass houses?--Light current 22:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen that the last month's worth of editing on at least one article I've looked at today consisted solely of twiddling with "branchlists" - the idea has been spread to too many pages without thinking it out - a tremendous waste of time and energy. I've read your explantion of branchlists and like many others I disagree that they are a net benefit to the Wikipedia. Surely the fact that so many people are objecting to your innovation gives you pause to think that maybe there might be something wrong with the idea? --Wtshymanski 21:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, if you took the time to look at the edit histories, you would see that I am not the instigator (just a supporter) of the branchlist idea. I gather that you are not too keen yourself! Please try to establish the facts before ranting on in future. THanks!--Light current 22:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where does a kwh wind up?

A kwh extracted from the atmosphere from wind turbines does not result in heat which wasn't present in the first place, unlike all forms of fuel generation, and solar power from energy which would have been reflected by albedo. And any portion of energy converted into EM radiation is likely to be beamed into space, e.g., infrared and visible light.

So wind power is very different than energy generated from any fuel. --James S. 06:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with my learned co-editor. Feel the top of your monitor - marvel at the fans in your computer - consider that every kwh put into your computer turns into heat in the atmosphere. Wind turbines extract a tiny fraction of the energy of the atmosphere to begin with, and ony a tiny part of that fraction gets re-emitted into space. You are mistaken. The effect of wind-generated energy on climate is negligable except insofar as it reduces the emission of CO2. --13:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, when you use wind power, you're using energy which was already in the atmosphere, and except for the portion which radiates to space, it goes back into the atmosphere. In contrast, when you use fuel, you are adding energy to the atmosphere which would not have otherwise been there, and adding greenhouse gas if it's a fossil fuel. We agree on that, right? --James S. 19:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Branchlist

Template:Branchlist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Omegatron 14:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Springfield, Manitoba

Hi! I noticed that you have edited recently on this article. Would you mind taking a look at the talk page listed above. i posted there early today. I'd like your opinion on what I wrote. (I think maybe I've lost perspective on the subject). Thanks in advance and "Cheers". Stormbay 20:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MI Cable

You restored fireproof and explosion proof. On what do you base that? I have seen MI cables fail at a fire test at ULC in Scarborough, ON. Even furnace insulation in blast furnaces is routinely replaced because it wears out. Just what makes you think anything is fireproof, as in immune to fire of sufficient duration and intensity? Also, apart from working in fire protevction, I was also R & D manager for a company that made blast resistant walls and doors. There are no tests in existence that would designate anything whatsoever as explosion proof. Even bunkers are not "~proof". Explosionproof would also mean that any size and shape and speed of projectile would have no effect on any size and shape of MI cable. On what do you base the immunity to fire and explosions of MI cable? Tyco/Pyrotenax would NEVER EVER make such a claim. On what do you base the use of your terms?--Achim 23:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trip to Flin Flon

Hi, just wondering how your trip to Flin Flon was? I saw you noted that you were going to be posting some pictures of the place. I might have to take a digital video with me next time I go back home, hit the high-ground on the east and west sides, and just pan the whole city. I find that the pic on the top of the article just doesn't do it justice. Weaponofmassinstruction 17:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, I got your note (I just don't get in here as often as I'd like anymore). I'm going to try to get back home for Christmas, grab some pics overlooking each side of town, then make it back there this summer to get the same shots from the same angles in the contrasting seasons. Cheers

[edit] Energy portal

Hi! As a contributor to WikiProject Energy development, I thought you might like to be aware of the opportunity to contribute to the new Energy Portal, now that there is one... No need to reply. Gralo 17:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FRS / GMRS

Thanks for the note, I removed the cats. I understand that FRS is not HAM'ish, but GMRS seems borderline. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comb-out

What do you mean by this edit? You're going to move all that deleted content into other articles, right? You're not just deleting things to "trim" the article, I hope. — Omegatron 18:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am the author of many of the sections trimmed. I agree that my grammar may not have been perfect as I wrote it at 2AM, but I feel the information I presented was valuable because it suggested alternate approaches to common problems. For example, the OP-amp circuit for doing current-voltage conversion for audio DACs contains as many as a dozen parts while the transformer based circuit uses only two, the transformer and a resistor, wired in paralell, to trim the output voltage to the desired level. It is likely that high-performance DAC products will tend to use this approach in the future for reason of it's elegance. Existing high-end products mimic the op-amp design with vacuum tubes. ( http://www.audionotekits.com/ Notice the design changes between Dac kit 1.1 and 2.1-B ).

sir, thanx for clearing confusion, but still i think that generator converts mechanical energy into electrical energy, so why should there be any concept of power factor in it, that (p.f)involves in transmission and u know p.f is there, when more than 1km tr/line r there, again u need transformer for that trn. that p.f is not involve there in generator.

[edit] Two-way radio

Thanks for adding the Two-way radio article to your to-do list.

I'm going to go back through the list of stuff on my user page and use your "What I want to see in a technology article" list along with the "Writing better articles" guidelines for opening paragraphs. Over the coming months, I will go back through the articles on my user page and try to them clean up. The original Two-way radio article had only frequency information and nothing on how they work or what they do. It may have had Amateur radio stuff too. I usually don't delete things unless they're factually wrong so I left the stuff. Editing would be a good thing. There is some history information in the Mobile radio article that may be relevant. There may be other stuff in articles appearing in the navigation template Template:Two-way radio too. User:David Jordan 11/29/2006.

[edit] revert at plc

Your revert at 18:55, 7 December 2006 seems to have wiped out an edit by 87.196.114.44. You didn't specify which version you reverted to but I see that you reverted to 04:48, 29 November 2006 DHN-bot. You could have reverted to my revision which included that edit. Why did you do that?

This was only a minor edit so no big deal but it seems odd.-Crunchy Numbers 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)