User talk:Spiel496

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Spiel496, 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 20:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 666

Thank you; I've decided to "be bold", as they say, and remove all the flotsam and jetsam (factoids attributable only to coincidence) from the goddamed 666 page. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PID control

Just regarding your changes to PID controller "Varaible cant be outside the integral", are you referring to the fact that "t" appears in the limit? I can see that as an issue, but surely you can have f(t) = t + \int_0^\tau e(t)\,dt ? User A1 14:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No. The problem with that expression is that the meaning of the t in e(t) is ambiguous. Is it the single time at which we wish to evaluate f(t), or is it a variable that ranges from 0 to τ? Spiel496 16:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Right, that makes sense, however we should probably define t prime in the article, but i wasn't sure how to make it clear without it become quite technical. perhaps "where t' is an independant variable representing the time axis?" User A1 05:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Really the math should be self-explanatory. If anything this article needs words removed rather than added. But I see your point -- there may be a sizeable audience that could benefit from a few words of definition. One way to link it with the text is to say that t' are those times in the past that are being used to generate the present PID output. Spiel496 14:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed my comment about windowing the integral in PID controller, I can't seem to back it up! :( User A1 16:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Heat capacity into Specific heat capacity

Spiel496: I’ve temporarily got a draft of a merged version HERE on my User Page. Please review it and tell me what you think at your next convenience. User talk for Greg L 23:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: Well, now I’ve done it. What is it that’s the sincerest form of flattery? As you will see, I folded pretty much all of the contents of Heat capacity into Specific heat capacity. The two articles seemed extraordinarily redundant to me. If what I’ve done is a major Wikipedia faux pas, feel free to revert it. However, since nothing on Wikipedia is copyrighted, and since I didn’t delete the heat capacity article, I didn’t see the harm. I guess I’ll find out soon enough, won’t I? Greg L (my talk) 23:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article on the kilogram

Spiel496. I did to the Kilogram article what I did to the Specific heat capacity article: I did some wholesale revising of it. It had degraded to a sorry state and needed many errors corrected. Unlike the Specific heat capacity article, others have what I call “squatters” who are not very enthusiastic about newcomers stirring the pot. I had added a section (Mass vs. weight) that Enuja deleted (stating she would later salt other articles with the text I had added). Well, to make a long story short, the section is back and I’m wondering what you think of it. On the following criterea, is it…

  1. informative to the typical visitor to this article,
  2. interesting to the typical visitor to this article, and
  3. does it enhance the article?

If you have an opinion on Mass vs. weight, one way or the other, please add your comments to Request for Comment: Scope of Kilogram article. Regards, Greg L (my talk) 17:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Calimetrics logo.png

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Calimetrics logo.png. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lapse Rate

Hi there, I noticed you deleted information from Mountain. Yes, I agree that the lapse rate has an impact on the temperature differentials on mountains, however, it is not the sole factor in determining such differences. . .so, I put the material back. I have no objection to the material being reworded, with information included that refutes all but a lapse rate explanation. . .if you can find a reference to replace the currently referenced material. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgagnon999 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for watching Robot

You reverted in one minute...I saw the "Twinkle" tag, but is there actually a bot that checks for "shut up"? :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope I didn't screw something up -- I wasn't being very careful. I recently installed Twinkle, and to try it out, I went searching for random vandalism. So it was I the human that identified "shut up" as a possibly non-encyclopedic phrase. Spiel496 (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I was just asking because I make it a habit of contacting everyone who does anything with robotics pages...it turns out to be a fantastic group of people. You're welcome to peek in on WP:WikiProject Robotics, btw...if you're interested in PID controllers, you would love it (or what it will soon develop into...we're having success at attracting new roboticists). I was surprised you caught the vandalism so fast. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conventional superconductor/Type I superconductor

Thanks for your comment. You are absolutely right when you say that niobium is type II (I didn't see it when I copied the list). About the fact that BCS theory explains it... I have to check it, but I have no time now. I will write you later. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

--

Ok, I'm back. Sorry, when I saw your message I really had to go. So, I am a physicist, but I am not an expert in superconductivity, and in fact that's the reason I am trying to help in this area (as when you make new things, you always understand much better everything). I am working mainly in the Spanish wikipedia about this subject. I would like to know your definitions for these concepts,

  • Type I = just one critical temperature, with no mixed state
  • Conventional = explained by the BCS theory

Is that your definition? I thought both definitions were equivalent, so I didn't even think about niobium (which, I agree, is a type II). If that is the definition, I don't think it is worthy to keep different articles for such close groups of materials, as we would be duplicating lots of information. I suggest merging all four articles (type I, type II, convnetional and unconventional) in another article: classification of superconductors. What do you think? Eynar Oxartum (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe those are the accepted definitions. Again, I don't have a reference available. I'm okay with your suggestion for one article. I don't have strong opinions about how subjects are grouped. Spiel496 (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realise that you actually answered me in your talk page just a few minutes later. I was checking my own. So, thanks for reverting the articles. We have to work on it. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably you want to have a look at Superconductor classification, which I just created in English and Spanish. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Again about type I and II sc

Exaggerated image showing the intrinsic difference between type I and type II superconductors. Type I have a coherence lenght ξ much bigger than the penetration depth λ, in other words, the size of the Cooper pair is much bigger then the magnetic field. * The superconducting phase is light blue. * The penetration of the magnetic field (which in this example is from both the upper and the lower sides) is red colour. * Cooper pairs are green colour.
Exaggerated image showing the intrinsic difference between type I and type II superconductors. Type I have a coherence lenght ξ much bigger than the penetration depth λ, in other words, the size of the Cooper pair is much bigger then the magnetic field. * The superconducting phase is light blue. * The penetration of the magnetic field (which in this example is from both the upper and the lower sides) is red colour. * Cooper pairs are green colour.

I have made this image about type I and II superconductors. You know about this subject, so I would like to know your opinion before adding it to some articles. Thanks! Eynar Oxartum (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Your comments are not negative at all, it's exactly what I was looking for: a critical point of view. You are right, probably I was thinking of the Cooper pairs in a wrong way. As Feynman said, not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong. I will check the website you have proposed to see what can I do about. Thanks for your time! Eynar Oxartum (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)