User talk:I B Wright

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Cinemascope pictures

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I deleted your images from the CinemaScope article for the simple reason that the lens itself is not an actual CinemaScope lens. As you can see from the article itself, it was a specific lens family which only was used for a brief period exclusively with 35 mm film (with the exception of CinemaScope 55). However, I felt that the image showing a view down the lens barrel was notable enough for inclusion in the anamorphic article, which is where all non-CinemaScope anamorphic information would typically go. I didn't move the other two images because I didn't feel that they were relevant enough for the article, especially as it already has other clearer sample images. I hope that you find these edits are succinct and clear, but if you have any issues with them, please feel free to discuss it further either on my talk page or the article discussion page. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 19:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC) PS - if you are interested in filmmaking articles, I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject Filmmaking. Look forward to your future edits.


[edit] Vacuum tube

May I trouble you for a citations regarding your assertion about cathode rather than heater failure mode that led to your recent deletion of my points regarding early computers. Kind Regards GoldenMeadows 14:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

cont.. Thanks for your comments.I take your point regarding directly/indirectly heated cathodes and think perhaps this issue relates to terminology more than anything else. My assertion was based, I suspect, on reading periodicals such as Wireless World from the late 60's onwards and perhaps from vintage radio periodicals in the 1990's. Unfortunately I gave my collection away a few years ago and of course have regretted it much since :). Tommy Flowers, the P.O engineer behind the Bletchley Park "Colossus" early computer came to the conclusion that it was better to keep it powered up rather than sustain the amount of failures associated with the power up switch on phase. The article on Vacuum Tubes refers to "The only problem was that the 10 Colossi consumed 15 kilowatts of power each, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year - nearly all of it for the tube heaters."

Tony Sale who has just received an Honorary Doctorate in recognition of his work on Colossus, Bletchley Park and World War II code breaking is quoted : "These were 50 volt Westat units stacked up in series to give +200 volts to -150 volts. The total power consumption was about 5 Kilowatts most of which was to the heaters of the valves." The VR56 valve was used in large quantities in the Colossus design: http://www.tubecollector.org/vr56.htm

I note with interest your comments on the rarity of open circuit heaters in valve equipment. I suspect you are referring to directly heated valves and filaments? In my own experience, early seventies color tv designs with indirectly heated valves, it was not an uncommon failure mode. I can no longer put a failure rate to this specific fault but the annualised failure rate for complete receivers in the early 70's european market products was in the order of 4 breakdowns per year in rental valve designs. Valves, from memory, accounted for the single biggest failure rate by component category and o/c heaters were not conspicuous by their absence. Color tv receivers of that era, sold by the millions, commonly utilised thermistors to counteract the heater switch on current surge to improve reliability similar to what Tommy flowers observed in the 1940's. By the end of the seventies the annualized failure rate for color tv receivers was heading south of one per year through the phasing out of valve equipment with i.c based designs.

Could I have your views on the above and if you might allow some mention in the article itself if explicit mention is made to Colossus?

[edit] Battle of the Beams

What was the point in providing links to 'main' articles that actually contain less information that the article in question? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I B Wright (talk • contribs) .

I placed the Main templates in that article for two reasons: 1) to provide readers with a clearly-recognizable link to related articles of relevance, and 2) as a subtle encouragement for editors to rectify the current situation, where, as you noted, the "main" articles are not as long as the sections in the Battle of the Beams article. I'm not confident enough in my knowledge of either radio navigation systems or of WWII UK military history to pare down the sections, merge into the narrower articles, and write an elegant summary for each of the sections myself.
If nothing else, I succeeded in having at least one person notice the situation you mentioned... – Swid (talk | edits) 19:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WE.177

I'm in the process of deleting all my uploaded images that remain my copyright, and the first stage is to orphan them by removing them from articles like WE.177. I'm in the process of withdrawing from Wikipedia. Several contributors have behaved so badly, and within the present structure of the Wiki it's impossible to control them, that I feel I no longer want to remain a contributor, or to permit them to use the fruits of my labour. Nor do I want to discuss it on my Talk page. That's why its been blanked. I feel too badly bruised already. I'm absolutely fed up with the abuse, and its so time consuming to deal with that other work is being neglected.

I worked on all the early nuclear weapons from Blue Danube, Red Beard, Violet Club, and all the Xmas Is test devices. BTW, as I recollect it, the strake was on one side only of the B & C casings. The reason was that the firing mechanism was relocated from the front end of WE.177A to the rear end of the fusion fuel package of the WE.177B & C model. One reason was that the firing mechanism required access to the extreme tail where the the barometric sensing device intake and exhaust had to be located. This was confirmed at a recent visit to the historical collection at AWE, where they have a beautifully executed sectioned WE.177C. Unfortunately I wasn't permitted to photograph or sketch it. If there are specific questions about these weapons you are free to use the Wiki email facility on my User page. Its less public. Brian.Burnell 02:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pentode

Hi I B Wright. The Pentagrid converter article contains the phrase "[Pentode? Are you quite sure? - Ed.] Absolutely. One UK company, ..." which you have reverted twice. Can you please explain why this is not inline discussion but the article itself? --Romanski 22:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a literary device alluding to the fact that a Pentode is an unlikely choice of valve to function as a frequency converter. It has been there for some time, and most of the vacuum tube savy contributors seem to be happy with it. I B Wright 12:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
To me, it looks like an unnoticed edit by a beginner. Given how much I see similar unintentional edits, that is the first thought that comes to my mind, and it makes the article seem "low quality". I say it should be removed, but if you insist then I don't care enough to argue. --Romanski 17:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
You can't keep this phrase there — it's highly unencyclopaedic and is clearly what is called "inline discussion". You can add to the article that this pentode might be somewhat special or unusual or whatever, but such an unprofessional sounding phrase will not stay in this article; that's for sure. — N-true 15:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear I B Wright. It still takes me some time to figure out how to report you as a vandal. Plus, I'm not sure if your deed can be called thus; I guess it's rather lacking of knowledge what an encyclopaedia is and what belongs in it. You should inform yourself about it. What I did is clearly no vandalism. I suggest you simply rephrase this sentence to something that is more encyclopaedia-like. Then everyone will be fine with it. — N-true 15:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pentagrid converter

Please stop reverting the article Pentagrid converter to a version that contains a piece of text that looks out of place. We are not trying to be geeky weirdos here, we are trying to write an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a work of literature that contains clear text accessible to laymen. Whether or not you might think that the text constitutes a "literary device", and irrespective of the fact that you think that "other vacuum-tube-savvy editors are fine with it", it is definitely not suitable text for an encyclopedia article. Thank you for your attention. — Timwi 10:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fishpond

Hi IB.

Just checked the Fishpond link and it seems OK now - the server was probably down or on a go-slow when you tried it.

Ian Dunster 22:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again IB.
The link was OK when I tried it but appears to have gone now (at least for the present) so I have revised the link to another page with an image of the Fishpond display unit.
Regards, Ian Dunster 13:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi IB.
Soz for the delay in replying, I must have missed your last post on my user page. I think quite a few of the more modern RAF aircraft radars were still referred-to as H2S.
BTW, if the picture you have of Fishpond is OK to use and needs any processing doing on it then let me know. Ian Dunster 21:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pentarid Converter

You didn't take the hint did you? You've just been reported for vandalism. I don't care that you are a different user (or a sock). I B Wright 15:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be confused both as to what vandalism is and as to how to write an article here. If you want to indicate that "a Pentode is an unlikely choice of valve to function as a frequency converter", find a source that says so, write a sentence that meshes with the rest of the article (quoting from the source if appropriate) and attribute it to the source. Wikipedia's encyclopedic content does not include editorial comments such as the one you insist on adding despite having been told by numerous people why the comment does not belong in the article. -- Jonel | Speak 15:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I. B. Wright: Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I recognize the literary device you're using on Pentagrid converter. However, you probably need to know that the de-facto editorial style of Wikipedia does not permit that sort of device in articles. I hope that you can accept this, and move on to adding more good content. Thanks! -–RHolton≡– 16:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A little something for you to read

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] — Timwi 16:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't take a genius to work out that that string of posts (from the timing) is orchestrated or (more likely) sock puppets.
Sorry, but that's not true; again you're claiming things you can't be sure of. If you want to know the real reason, I have Timwi's user page on my watch list and stumbled across the issue there. I saw that the article still wasn't corrected (i.e., the inapropriate sentence was still in there), so I took it out. It might have been similar with Romanski and Timwi; the other editors probably found their way here by reading about the issue on the Mailing list (have you read Timwi's links at all?). It doesn't take a genius either to see that the phrase you keep inserting to the article, was totally unencyclopaedic and had to be taken out. Please stop making far-fetched claims about things you don't have a clue of; things like this can be regarded as personal attacks. — N-true 13:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One thing I don't understand

Please might I ask two little questions of you, because I'm quite curious:

  • Who do you think are the "Wikipedia moderators" that you keep referring to? You seem to suggest that there has been some form of official sanctioning of your "literary device" on the pentagrid converter article – can you link to it?
  • Why do you think that something that has been in the article for several months should therefore stay? If someone posts a bad article about a valid topic, and nobody improves it for several months, does that mean (according to your logic) that it can never be improved?

— Timwi 19:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopedic comment on Pentagrid converter

The joke you're trying to introduce to Pentagrid converter is getting old, you know... Humor's great, but Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. It is time to straighten up and make serious contributions. Otherwise, you might be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert 23:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The relevance is, that what you keep saying is inappropriate and unencyclopedic, and that it's in violation of Wikipedia standards and policies. It is not OK to keep doing it - it will be reverted, and if you keep it up, you will be blocked. Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert 23:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Scope Aperture.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Scope Aperture.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BJBot 20:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deionized water

Hi I B, about your edit to DI water where you have the paragraph in there explaining DI fire extinguisher mists, while I have no doubt that these systems DO use di water, I remain skeptical that the reason for doing so is that the water that accumulates on surfaces is non-conducting and safe for electronics etc. Do you have a source for that particular aspect of the system? I can't see anything to that effect on the http://www.hi-fog.com/index_EN.shtml site. Its not that I doubt your personal experience with the system, its just that in light of charts like this http://www.resysinc.com/ResistivityChart.htm its fairly obvious that a mere FEW parts per MILLION in dissolved contaminants make the water quite conductive. So di water accumulating on any surface, even in a cleanroom, is going to become conductive practically instantly. None of this even takes into consideration the fact that if you have electrodes with any current at all running through them touching the water it will absolutely break down into a highly conductive contaminated state due to electrolysis and dissolving of the electrode into the water within seconds....--Deglr6328 13:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] pH values in pH meter

Can you provide a reference for changing 7 to 7.01, 10 to 10.01, etc.? A little joke of yours? --Glengarry 19:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)