User talk:SteveBaker/archive7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mini 1275GT 2 Wider tires = more grip 3 Your post on the computing desk today 4 Ether Plus Two 5 Three revert rule 6 ... 7 OH MY GOD! 8 Keep up the good work 9 Torque vs Acceleration once again 10 Hi

[edit] Mini 1275GT

Thanks, Steve. Regards Charles01 06:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit of a stop-gap measure. We really need a better picture - that car was dirty & rusty in places and the background was very distracting. We really need a decent photo. The other clubman photo also needed heavy 'cleanup' to get it to a reasonably usable form - and it too is still a pretty terrible photo. It seems that clubman owners are reluctant to take good photos of their cars! (Something that we round-nosed Mini enthusiasts are generally grateful for! :-)) - but when you actually NEED a good clubman photo - they can be hard to find.) SteveBaker 13:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the key may lie in your casual use of the word 'enthusiasts'. Somehow the poor old Clubman didn't generate a lot of these, whereas the older shape did (and does, apparently including some of the movers and shakers at BMW). Clearly I'd be happy to be proved wrong on that in the present context: it's not the best image ever of a 1275GT, but so far it appears to be the best available, and of interest as an indicator of what 'they' did to the Mini during one more than averagely sad period in the history of the UK auto industry. Which is why I put it there in the first place. Charles01 13:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wider tires = more grip

I've read the discussion on the Science Reference Desk regarding whether or not wider tires will give more grip to a car. I was afraid that you would no longer check it, so I decided to ask you on your discussion page. In your explanation, I just found certain elements confusing, probably due to some wording, so I'm just clarifying a few details. The mentioned "rule of thumb" of friction is true in certain cases with only certain materials because as the contact area becomes increased, the force applied over them becomes reduced-as it has to spread over the area, right? This is why the surface area can be neglected from the equation-as the impact it makes gets canceled out.

However, with a pliant material like rubber, a small increase in pressure will vastly increase the surface area. Therefore, now, surface area can no longer be left out of the equation. Am I right in interpreting your explanation?

Thanks. Acceptable 21:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

With steel, the material is not very flexible. So unless it is spectacularly smooth, very few atoms of of the steel in a railroad wheel are in close contact with the steel rail - I'd guess it's a tiny fraction of 1%...maybe 0.001% of the atoms on the contact patch. It is also roughly true that if you double the pressure (as in "the normal force divided by the area over which it's applied"), you'll double the number of atoms that are forced together and the frictional force approximately doubles. So if you double the contact area of the two surfaces, you double the number of atoms that are potentially available to be in contact - but you also halve the pressure between them - which halves the percentage of atoms in contact - the net result of which is that changing the area of the contact patch and keeping the total down-force constant has no effect on the total number of atoms in contact and thus no effect on the frictional force.

This is in accordance with what is taught - and it works great for all sorts of engineering problems of the kind that the Victorians needed to solve in building steam engines and Babbages' machine and such.

But as Feynman notes, this "rule" is merely an approximation that breaks down when the pressure (or the temperature) gets large enough.

It's easy to understand why. Imagine the pressure on a steel plate that is large enough that 100% of the atoms are in contact. Further pressure increases have no effect on the number of atoms in contact because it's already 100%. However if you have vastly more pressure than is needed to keep 100% of the atoms in contact (let's say ten times that pressure) then doubling the area doubles the number of atoms available and the consequent halving of the pressure still isn't enough to allow the atoms to come out of contact. So in this insanely high pressure scenario, you just doubled the frictional force without increasing the normal force - the pressure halved BUT the number of atoms in contact with each other just doubled! The old-fashioned rule of thumb breaks down at these kinds of pressures. You see, that the "rule" can only hold up so long as the percentage of atoms in contact is able to increase linearly with the pressure increase - and once 100% of them are in contact, that's that.

Now, with steel, this essentially never happens. If you force two pieces together with that much force, you'll literally weld them together into one solid chunk of steel because the atoms are 100% in contact and you now have one uniform piece of metal. This kind of pressure welding is actually possible - and has limited uses in industry - but the pressure required is so great that it has to be done with high explosives.

However, with rubber (which is really soft), it hardly takes any pressure at all to get all of the atoms of the rubber 100% in contact with the ground. So increasing the area of the contact patch - but keeping the normal force the same does increase the number of atoms in contact - and subsequent increases in area will continue to increase the friction and reduce the pressure until the pressure is so gentle that the rubber starts to come away from the road. So the rule of thumb really only works for very hard materials that have very few atoms in contact - and rubber isn't one of those materials. Those bendy tangles of long-chain molecules can flex to get into intimate contact with almost anything with very low incident pressure.

There are a bazillion other ways that this "law" of friction is wrong - as I explained, it breaks down at high pressures - and also at high temperatures - the speed at which the surfaces are moving also matters critically. The ABS systems on a car only work because frictional forces are higher when the contact patches aren't moving relative to each other...heck the only reasons wheels work better than skis in most circumstances is because of that).

But to be honest, I'm rather tired of arguing about this one - everyone but you finally agreed with me - and I have a Nobel-winning Physicist on my side! If this still gives you trouble, please read what Feynman had to say - his physics lectures are a total eye-opener for physics enthusiasts - his approach to teaching it quite utterly different to the other text books out there. Rather than teaching you a simplified version of a few dozen phenomena - then coming back and telling you that much of what he said was actually a horrible over simplifications and proceeding to teach it to you all over again, he manages to tell the story right the first time, every time. So when you've finished the section on (say) friction, you aren't left with a half-assed view that has to be shot down and un-learned in the face of actual reality. A set of three volumes comes in at about $100 these days - but if you are a science nut like me, it's money well spent.

On a practical note, I drive autocross cars for fun - I can tell you with 100% personal certainty that a 9" wide tyre gives you vastly more traction than a 6" wide tyre on the same car with the same suspension setup, on the same track, etc, etc. Switching tyres will knock 10 to 15 seconds from a one minute run - and that's the difference between a stock family saloon car and a Porsche. There is no doubt at all that increasing the area of the contact patch on a car tyre increases the amount of grip. SteveBaker 23:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, rest assured, I never doubted you in the first place. I was merely just trying to clarify a few facts and trying to unlearn certain things I learned in physics. I appreciate your time for clearing this up for me. Acceptable 02:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your post on the computing desk today

If it takes me (say) 2 minutes per day to erase junk mail from my inbox at work, that's... I didn't appreciate that there were so many shallow thinkers here. (sigh)

I was going to type a reply publicly, but thankfully moved it here.

I think somewhere above it says that the reference desk is not a soapbox. Everybody has an opinion on spam, you don't have to impose yours. Quite a few months ago you dismissed one of my threads quite rudely; I have never since returned to the Science Desk. Please don't denigrate the Computing Desk to this level. I quite enjoy the content here without having to put up with condescending attitudes. There's quite enough of that in our daily lives. We are not all deep thinkers and supremely intelligent as you no doubt think you are. Sandman30s 21:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So I see from your 'User contributions' list that you didn't similarly berate the other people who were soapboxing about how Spam WASN'T a problem? People who think that spam isn't a problem because they personally can just delete it really easily are without doubt not giving the problem any significant thought. But for some reason they still feel the need to say that Spam ain't so bad on this public forum. In fact it's the scourge of the Internet. It prevents all manner of convenient uses of the Internet from being possible. They simply hadn't given the question any amount of thought...and I said so. I pointed out that they were not thinking about the problem on a level appropriate for a ref desk answer. I stand by that claim. This problem (people just chiming in with wrong answers) is reaching epidemic proportions on the computer desk - the misc and science desks which I also frequent don't have this problem to anything like the same degree. People should not write in with grossly incorrect responses. If you don't know the answer or haven't thought about it deeply then leave the topic alone. My language may have been a little harsh - but it's certainly justified. SteveBaker 23:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - after much digging I found you last contribution on the Science desk from 30th May. You were claiming some machine or other was a treatment for Allergies. Your post was hardly a calm, considered reply:

I resent all these comments about hoaxes and quackery. I am being totally serious when I say that I have had first hand experience with this machine. You people can carry on going back to your allopathic doctors and stuff yourselves with antibiotics and drugs, but I know what has worked for my family. We have not had antibiotics for two years. This is from a point when my hyper-allergic son was getting pumped with antihistamines, steroids and antibiotics every two weeks. Those who refuse to believe that there is "alternative healing" can remain in their un-enlightened state for all I care. Sandman30s 08:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sandman30s You aren't allowed to give medical advice on Wikipedia - especially on the help-desks - even hoaxes and quackery like this one. The machine is obviously completely bogus - I don't know whether you have a financial interest in promoting this bullshit - or whether you are simply experiencing a placebo effect - but you aren't allowed to do it here. Promoting pseudo-science is definitely not what we're here for. SteveBaker 11:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What I said was true - you aren't allowed to give out medical advice by promoting these highly dubious machines. "Quantum Biofeedback"?!?! The machine does a "search for harmonious substances"??! "energy meridians"??! Yeah - hoaxes and quackery of the worst kind. You were taken for a ride by those people - you fell for it hook line and sinker. I get allergies too - I don't always take drugs for them - and guess what - they often get better all by themselves. No machine required, and certainly no "Quantum biofeedback" or "energy meridians" - whatever the heck that is supposed to mean! (No, oddly there are no Wikipedia articles about either of those subjects - I wonder why not?) I don't know what you paid the makers of that piece of junk - but you might as well have flushed it down the toilet. I mean - you were really taken in by that? The tone of my response was strong - but it followed your equally arrogant comment and one of the least scientific suggestions I'd seen for a very long time on the SCIENCE desk...yeah, that's the desk that deals with SCIENCE - not pseudo-science. SteveBaker 23:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on finding the correct thread. You say 'If you don't know the answer or haven't thought about it deeply...' - then how about practising your own premise. You presumed I paid for that 'piece of junk'. You presumed I was marketing it. In fact you presumed a whole lot without following your own little piece of advice. Well, if you would care to read a bit 'deeper' into it - I went for treatment to a registered homeopath who was making use of that device. And, lo and behold, the readings on that device was SPOT ON without me having told the homeopath ANY of my allergies or problems. And you are so short-sighted to dismiss this thing as bogus? Just because it is something you don't understand, you summarily dismiss it. Similar to when the church used to dismiss all those scientists centuries ago. I thought we have moved on since then. Sadly, I can see was haven't. And, since you are so good at digging, you might find I have never come back to that QXCI machine topic - I was so disgusted by the response on the science desk. If I had really wanted to promote that machine, I would have peristed. I was merely sharing my real-life experience that WORKED for me. If this does not contribute faithfully towards wikipedia, which moves towards the sum knowledge of mankind, than I don't know what will. Also, I felt that I had something to contribute to the Science Desk - I am actually a scientific person believe it or not. I take the best of the scientific world and compare it to the not-so-scientific - and come to my own conclusions sometimes. If you don't believe that one day religion and science will converge to a point of common understanding, or transcend current thinking, then I am afraid you, Sir, are the short sighted one. At the very least, you have chased me away from one helpdesk. Now, perhaps you can reach into yourself and see some of the errors of your ways, you will be the richer for it. If you can't, then you will forever be a preacher and never a student. Sandman30s 12:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"A registered homeopath"!!! Oh great - I should have guessed. Another quack who has discovered another way to take people's money for no treatment at all. Wikipedia's article on the subject of Homeopathy says this - in the second paragraph of the introduction:

The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible, are directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge, and have been characterised as a form of magical thinking. Claims for the efficacy of homeopathy are unsupported by the collected weight of scientific and clinical studies. This lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against modern scientific ideas, have caused, in the words of a recent medical review, "...homeopathy to be regarded as placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst." Meta-analyses of many clinical trials have shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and that studies that suggest genuine homeopathic effects have generally been flawed in design. Homeopaths are also accused of giving 'false hope' to patients who might otherwise seek effective conventional treatments, and some homeopaths advise patients to avoid standard medical procedures such as vaccination and anti-malarial drugs.

I remind you that we were discussing this on the SCIENCE help desk - not some pseudo-science forum. Science is about explaining how things work. Where is the explanation for this magical box that can tell you what's wrong with you in ways that hundreds of years of medical research have failed to tell? Where are the double-blind placebo studies to show it's efficacy. A couple of people with anecdotal evidence isn't proof. Plenty of people benefitted from Thalidomide until babies started to be born without arms and legs. We have to have serious studies by independant testers. Until we have that - this is just junk-science, pseudo-science. Any responsible company producing such a machine that they genuinely believed worked would want to get it independently tested - and then it would be universally hailed as a medical miracle and you'd find one in every hospital and doctor's office in the world. A machine that could do what they claim with some simple electrodes, a laptop and some software would not be being used in some homeopathy clinic - it would be EVERYWHERE. The fact is that the dozens of companies making things that make such wild claims are hoping against hope that nobody WILL test them because as soon as they do, the game is up.

OK - if you are a scientist - let's just pick one term from the article you linked to. They claim that the machine uses "Quantum Biofeedback". Please tell me (since you are a scientist) what you think "Quantum Biofeedback" could conceivably mean? I mean, we all know what the two words mean individually - but what possible Biofeedback mechanism could operate at the level of quantum theory? And if so, how come there isn't a decent explanation of the term ANYWHERE on the net that doesn't just add more technobabble to a term that's already technobabble. Let's go to the first few hits for the term on Google and see if we can get some kind of an explanation that a reasonably competent scientist could use to judge what the machine(s) are doing:

Number 1 Google Hit: http://www.charicenter.com/display/QXCI.asp

What is Quantum Biofeedback? Quantum Biofeedback scans the client's body looking for everything from viruses, deficiencies, weaknesses, allergies, abnormalities and food sensitivities. It reports on the biological reactivity and resonance in your body and indicates needs, dysfunctions and vulnerabilities. The information provided by Quantum Biofeedback is fundamentally different from X-rays, blood tests, etc.., as it tells us about the energetic state of one's body and the direction in which the body is focusing its energy.

OK - so it's a scanner of some kind that can scan for ANYTHING medical - just anything really. The terms "biological reactivity and resonance" don't have any meaning in mainstream science either - so they are no help. All they really tell us is what it isn't. In terms of "What is Quantum Biofeedback?" - we have no answer other than it's a machine that can diagnose absolutely anything. Very wonderful - but where does the "Quantum" part come from? It's a machine with electrodes and a computer. There is nothing here that could concievably be doing anything at the quantum level.

Number 2 Google Hit: http://www.quantum-biofeedback.net/

This site doesn't really tell me what it is - but it provides a helpful link to a page that says: How Does It Work? - Aha! This should help. The QXCI device is a highly complex program with electrodes attached by wires to the ankles, wrists and forehead which measure and feed frequency information between the QXCI device and you. It is nicknamed "Quick See" because of its ability to quickly see what is affecting you within your body and in your environment. The ionic exchanges of reaction that take place in your body and brain (at lightning speed) are measured as energetic components in your body. With a feedback loop, the device zeros in on your frequency pulse and sends back an alternate pulse to which your body responds.

In turn, your body alters its own frequency pulse, thus creating a change. For example, from compulsive to anxiety free, imbalance to balance.

OK - so again, it's a laptop with some software and some electrodes - that somehow, from this very minimal amount of data figures out what's wrong with you. Although this explanation says nothing about the "biological reactivity and resonance" - it's saying that "ionic exchanges of reaction" are measured as "energetic components" - and it zeros in on your "frequency pulse" somehow affects your mood by sending back more of those things. Well, that's nothing like what the last one said. And still, all of the terms they are using bear no resemblance to something you could discuss on a scientific level. Your "frequency pulse"? The frequency of you pulse (ie your heartrate) maybe? Well, if it's really sending electrical signals back to regulate your heart rate then the FDA needs to reconsider whether it's legal or not because it's sure as hell not licensed as a pacemaker. Well, I'm sure the third most significant Google hit will clear it up for us:

Number 3 Google Hit: http://www.quantum-life.com/

Oh boy - this one's a doozie. They have two machines which flash LED's at your ankles and cost $15,000 bucks a pop! Wow! What could possibly be in those tiny boxes that's worth that much? Aparrently, one of these Quantum Biofeedback devices has "Light, Sound and Tri vector Electro-magnetic frequencies" - well, light is an electromagnetic wave - but what does "electro-magnetic frequency" mean? What's a "Tri vector"? How is sound relating to electromagnetics? It's an air pressure wave. This is more technobabble - it has NO MEANINGFUL CONTENT. These guys are putting $10 of electronics into a box that flashes some LED's and they are selling it for about 1000 times what it's worth. Trust me - that's a scam. I guarantee that left alone for 10 minutes with one of these boxes and a screwdriver and I could prove to you that it contains some variable oscillators connected via long wires to some LED's. It does NOTHING. Thousands of LIFE frequencies now have corresponding musical tones - what is a "Life frequency"? Well, if life has a frequency, it can certainly be represented by a tone - but it probably won't be very musical! "Full spectrum light diodes" - there is no such thing as a full spectrum diode - LED's work at one frequency and one frequency only. White light diodes produce a few frequencies by secondary emissions - but they certainly don't generate a full spectrum. If these guys have invented a true white light diode then they wouldn't be hawking dubious medical devices because every kind of lighting engineer would be beating a path to their door! "Similar quantum biofeedback devices generate electro-magnetic frequencies only." - *ONLY* !?! Well, the electromagnetic spectrum goes from very long wave radio with a frequency down to one wave per minute - up to high energy gamma rays at ungodly high frequencies. There really aren't any other frequencies in the universe. So who knows what 'frequencies' they are claiming this device produces that the others don't.

Number 4: http://www.quantumomegatronmachine.com/

This one helps the patient to "Modulate their biogenic wave to stimulate omegatron radiation in the theta band" ...and thereby promote healing...yadda, yadda, yadda.

Truly - if you are a scientist as you claim, you must appreciate that those descriptions are complete bullshit! You must be asking yourself why not one of these devices has an actual explanation for what it does that is in ANY way a valid sentence in the English language - not one. Every single one takes a handful of "science words" and tosses them together in random order to make something that sounds good. You won't find any of their phrases comprehensible in any way. The last one sounds pretty much like the others - but as it happens, I made it up - it's basically a quote from StarTrek.

Sure - they wave this machine around, and the diagnostician parrots back to you the symptoms you've just given to him - it's an age-old technique used by palm readers and astrologers for 10 centuries at least. He does the magic - and if you happen to feel better by flook - or if the placebo effect happens to work - then an unsceptical person will be easily taken in by it. However, if you examine the facts, it's complete and utter quackery. These people are criminals - they deserve to be exposed as such.

-- SteveBaker (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you have taken a lot of time to do a whole lot of 'research' on google, but you still have not heard what I said here, and said originally. I went to a homeopath who used this machine on me. I did NOT tell her what my symptoms were - I purposely told her that I suffered from allergies. She connected the device and the printout amazing diagnosed all the issues, as well as a new issue that I was about to experience. Then, later on, I tried both my sons WITHOUT telling there that they suffer from a mould allergy - and the machine accurately reflected this on the printout. Believe it or not. I don't care how much of research you have done, this actually worked for me, and I saw it with my own two eyes.

Now, on the subject of bioresonance, your body actually emits an EMP. Since you are an organism that produces energy, your cells interact with each other with energy output. If there is something wrong with you, the voltages at a cellular level are off and this machine can accurately predict this and correct it with 'energy therapy'. Anyway, the printout showed that the energy levels in my body were off and recommended a few treatments to correct that, in association with other treatments. The homeopath prepared some herbal treatments, and after a few weeks the allergies were gone. Now, you may call this the placebo effect, and I don't doubt the existence of this. However, I believed in the allopathic treatment for years, without any result - why didn't the placebo effect work then for me, or for my sons who were being pumped with all kinds of shocking drugs for years? And, when the homeopath cured THEM, was it the placebo effect - for a 3 year old??

Finally, just some real-life (NOT google) experience on homepaths. My aunt is an excellent allopathic general practitioner. For years, she doubted homepaths and questioned the lack of medical trials etc. Then one day she received a patient who suffered from chronic arthritis for years. She prescribed the usual drugs, and of course, the patient never improved. One day, during a heated argument with the local pharmacist, who started stocking homeopathic medicine, my aunt the doctor agreed to buy a homeopathic remedy for arthritis to try on her patient. She gave this to the patient "outside of the office" and lo and behold - after 4 weeks the patient miraculously came back to her and said all the aches and pains were gone. So, my aunt, the critic and disbeliever, bought some books on homeopathy and attended a few courses. She discovered the wonders of aromatherapy in particular. Today, she offers both the allopathic and homeopathic treatments, deciding which would be more effective for her patients. She is so busy now that she can't cope. Call my aunt a quack? Yeah right, she qualified top in the country during final year school, and was on the dean's list every year at medical school. She is so intelligent it scares me. If she can embrace homeopathy, trust me, there is some value in that. The wikipedia article is, I am afraid, seriously flawed and probably reflects the opinion of either a disbeliever, or someone that is too narrow-minded to accept alternative healing. AND - of course the pharmeceutical industry is going to call them quacks - alternative healing is eating into a multi-billion dollar market share!

Sandman30s (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I repeat my simple request - which you conveniently ignored: What do YOU (as a supposed scientist) believe the term "Quantum Biofeedback" to mean?

The Wikipedia article on homeopathy has an amazing 18 solid scientific references for that one paragraph I quoted alone. Homeopathy has been quite utterly debunked - it's (at best) a placebo effect and at worst an exceedingly dangerous quackery that keeps patients from seeking the treatment they actually need.

If you are a scientist (which I very much doubt from listening to your pseudo-scientific blathering) - you should appreciate that a collection of anecdotal evidence is USELESS as proof of any significan question.

You say "Now, on the subject of bioresonance, your body actually emits an EMP. Since you are an organism that produces energy, your cells interact with each other with energy output. If there is something wrong with you, the voltages at a cellular level are off and this machine can accurately predict this and correct it with 'energy therapy'.". OK - let me take what you just said and try to find out what you mean.

• You mention Bioresonance - this term is another ill-defined pseudo-science thing - nobody says what it means. Our article (which is well referenced says that "Scientific studies did not show effects surpassing placebo-effects."...so this is some kind of meaningless marketting term from the same set of charletans that came up with "Quantum Biofeedback" (Please don't forget to let me know what that means!)
• Our bodies emit an EMP? Really? You mean an "Electromagnetic pulse"? That's the only expansion of the acronym that seems even remotely relevent. EMP's are something normally associated with nuclear weapons - but perhaps you mean (from our Electromagnetic pulse article): "A broadband, high-intensity, short-duration burst of electromagnetic energy." - in which case, no - the body doesn't produce an EMP. There are stray voltages of microscopic levels produced by nerve cells - but the net effect of trillions of cells producing these voltages at random times produces white noise - mush from which no useful information can be detected. There is absolutely no evidence of ANY description that you could extract information of any meaning whatever from this - expecially not with a couple of electrodes and a laptop.
• Yes, we are organisms that produce energy - kinetic, heat, sound but very, very little electrical energy.
• "Your cells interact with each other with energy output" - that's not even correct English - I don't know what you mean. Our cells communicate using chemical signals - not electrical. Energy output is motion and heat. The ion densities at the junctions between nerve cells can be read using electrodes - but that's not going to work for all of your cells.
• "If there is something wrong with you, the voltages at a cellular level are off" - since these 'voltages at the cellular level' are simply not there - the idea that they could be "off" is not meaningful. But even if there were such signals, cells are dying in your body all the time - it's a natural part of renewal. With 100 trillion cells in our body - and VAST numbers of them dying every second how on EARTH could a simple laptop computer (clock speed of 3GHz lets say) have the processing power to monitor each of those signals and tell which ones are dying because you have some disease - and which ones are merely skin cells dying and sloughing off? The cacophany from 100 trillion cells all signaling the most subtle information about their health would be UTTERLY impossible to decypher. But it's irrelevent - these "voltages" don't exist...so no.
• "and this machine can accurately predict this and correct it with 'energy therapy'.". Even if I were to accept that the machine could filter from that insane (and non-existant) noise some sort of meaningful response - now could it conceivably - even in principle - send just the right voltages to just the right cells though a couple of electrodes? How does this voltage (applied between just a few points on your body) possibly get the right voltage to the right cell? But even if it could - these "voltages" from the cells could only be a side-effect of their function. Merely changing the voltage couldn't change all of the subtle biochemical pathways through the cell.

This is the most complete pile of crap I've seen in a long time. I'm HORRIFIED that anyone who calls himself a scientist would spout this random technobabble without thinking for a moment about what it might actually MEAN. It's like the Cargo cult people who saw that aircraft brought wonderful things to their islands and tried to make them return by simulating the 'look' of an airport. They had air traffic controllers wearing wooden "headphones" to try to replicate what they'd seen would bring the aircraft back - without any understanding of the meaning of those things. Here we have a bunch of people (yourself included it seems) using scientific-sounding words like "EMP", "resonance", "quantum" and "biofeedback" without understanding what those words actually mean. As if combining these words that are a part of real science into random phrases will somehow make an complete piece of junk become "scientific".

So - what science do you actually do? What are your qualifications? Where did you study? It's hard to imagine.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, just rude, calling what I type "bullshit" or "crap". I never said I was a professional scientist. I merely embrace science. I am a computer scientist, if that means anything, but I don't profess to understand the nitty-gritties the way a professional would. I would not even attempt to explain what "quantum biofeedback" means - I am not a nuclear scientist!! I have a basic understanding - even if incorrect - but the way you pile it on, you do that same thing on the help desk which irritates me; you are by no means a professional scientist yourself, you are games programmer by professional and I am a database analyst, so our argument might be futile.

I didn't mean the voltages are off, as in not on. They are a little off the normal energy output the machine expects. And yes, this is the EMP which you also shot down. We all emit an EMP at a certain frequency, go look it up. The QX machine can read this. It is NOT merely a laptop, it connects to a box which hooks up to you via electrodes and whatever else I will not even attempt to explain.

And yes, you ignored the rest of what I said because, as usual, you found something to pick on. So please, go pick on someone else in the helpdesk, as I certainly will NEVER get anywhere with someone as indoctrinated as you.

PS/ I studied Maths and Computer Science at university, and you are a games programmer, so that hardly qualifies either of us to discuss this any further.

To get back to my original point to you - and PLEASE no more on this topic - please refrain from shooting people down in the helpdesk. We are all here to learn from each other. EVERY one has value in what they say. But YOU want to only preach. LISTEN to others, and that will make you a better respected person.

Sandman30s (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there you go. I studied physics and cybernetics - and I used to work at a top research lab - then I did work on thermodynamics for infrared sensors - then flight simulation - now games programming. Yeah - I have a pretty good science background - AND I've spent 30 years as a professional scientist AND now I'm a games programmer (It pays better!). OK - so if you are a programmer - you should understand this kind of explanation:

What information could be coming from the electrodes of the machine back to the laptop? It's at best a couple of analog waveforms - sampled into an AtoD converter. This means that the computer is reading at most a handful of lowish frequency analog waveforms - which is the sum total of these "voltages" coming from 100 trillion cells - some of which are dying naturally of old age, other from various injuries (small scratches - that kind of thing). In all this tangled mess of noise, what software running on a conventional CPU could possible extract information from that mess. Consider taking a recording of a string quartet and trying to extract the sound made by each of the four instruments - we don't have the technology to do that. How on EARTH could we extract and analyse these microscopic voltages coming from 100 trillion cells? Heck there isn't enough RAM in the laptop to even consider storing the separate signals if you COULD analyse them.

The problem would be analogous to this thought experiment. You have a bunch of dice ("cells") - one of them is "sick" - it's loaded so that it always rolls a 1. If you roll the sick dice by itself, it's obvious that it's sick. If you roll a handful of dice though - it's harder to tell that one of them comes up 1 all the time because the odds are pretty good that out of 5 dice, one will always come up '1'. But if you have 100 trillion dice and you roll them - then even if quite a lot of them roll only 1's - it would be IMPOSSIBLE to tell. Worse still, this device can't see the individual scores on the dice - it only sees the sum total of all of those 'voltages' - the total of all of the dice. Seeing just that one number - the total voltage across all of the cells in the body (which is all a couple of electrodes can possibly manage) you have NO chance to pick out the dice that are rolling 1's all the time from the other 99,999 billion that are working just fine. That's the scale of what this machine is claiming! I can't imagine how anyone with half a brain in their head would believe that!

"We all emit an EMP at a certain frequency, go look it up." - where? Where should I look this up? There are no respectable science sites that I could find that sair anything about that...and in truth, it's a really unlikely thing. Plus, if you read what a "pulse" is - it contains all frequencies - that's why the Wikipedia definition for "EMP" says it's a "broadband" signal - it contains frequencies span the entire spectrum. So, *NO* they can't possibly emit a "Pulse" at a "Certain Frequency" - that's a mathematical impossibility. I'm not shooting down these ideas because I don't understand the details - it's absolutely fundamental stuff, not tiny details.

This kind of crap pseudo-science makes me very angry - charletans like this "homeopath" need to be debunked. They are harming people by tricking them out of their money and giving them fake treatments that are only legal precisely because they do absolutely nothing. If these machines and homeopathic "drugs" actually worked then they'd have to be licensed by the FDA - and for that they'd have to go through the same careful testing that a mainstream drug has to. If they'd done that - and they'd worked - then a revolution in mainstream science would have been required. But if you'd open your eyes and stop simply claiming that "The wikipedia article is, I am afraid, seriously flawed" - and instead go and look at the impressive list of carefully prepared trials of the technology that it references - read some of the experiments they did. That article is in fact spot-on.

Anyway - your inability consider rational arguments marks you as the kind of woolly-headed thinker that I detest. If you don't understand what the makers of these machines claim, then you should at least try to find out. I did that - and I think you'll have to agree that they don't HAVE an explanation - these are just random words fished out of the ether that sound good. I've thought carefully about this - and (as you can see) researched it carefully. What I found is a sea of typical psuedo-science. If you don't want to listen to a reasoned debate and you'd rather just trot out blatent untruths that have been passed onto you by the very charlatans that are cheating you - then go ahead. I've stopped caring. However, don't presume that I'll fail to state the truth about these ridiculous claims whenever I'm given the opportunity. I certainly will. I'll end this thread on that thought. No need to reply - your arguments are not worth my effort to read. I don't care about what you think anymore.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I know what worked for me, and who I will support. And I did care what you thought but you are rude and self-centred, so whatever. Have a nice life. Sandman30s (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ether Plus Two

(If the title to this section has turned red, just ignore this message. Thanks.) If it is still blue, could you take a look at the article, please? I was patrolling New Pages tonight and came across it. It seemed to be some sort of advertising of an author's self-published book (which always alerts me, though self-publishing has some honourable roots) and physics' theory. I tagged it for "Speedy-Spam". The author made same changes and did a "hangon", and I looked at it again. I am now doing what I should have done in the first place: asking someone who knows something about science to check out the material. I have read your answers on the RefDesks and appreciate your dedication to logic and to scientific thinking. If I am wrong, could you just say so here and I will make the appropriate apologies for my mistakes. Thank you for your assistance. Bielle (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the title turned red - so I guess you're OK. (This is starting to sound like one of those pregnancy test kits!) SteveBaker (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear heavens, am I glad all that is long behind me, the pregnancy tests, I mean! I have a feeling this article may be back. I sense "sincere", which is much harder than "vandal" or "troll" to deal with. May I call upon you again should such a need arise? And thanks for being on-call on this one. Bielle (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure! Perhaps you know the perpetrators user name so we could do a pre-emptive strike and explain directly to the user why Wikipedia doesn't allow this? That's generally more effective than repeatedly deleting articles. I'm also a part of the 'Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User' program - we try to use positive techniques to reform these characters! SteveBaker (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I just saw this as I came to check out who was yelling at you (below) and why. The perpetrator's user name is User:Noonchester, which, coincidentally, I am sure, is also the name of the originator of the self-published theory "Ether Plus Two". I still can't find anything related to the title on the Net that would seem to fit, but I am no expert in searches for academic papers If you think I should do anything else with this, please let me know. I will keep a closer eye on my watchlist, just in case. Thanks Bielle (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - I stepped in to try to stop an edit war - now I'm writing two pages about Wikipedia guidelines - then I'm getting a page of flaming CAPITAL LETTERS all over my talk page. I forgot my asbestos underwear and I'm not having a good Wiki-day! Anyway: Is the bane of your existance still creating articles? I see he/she uploaded a bunch of images that look like they belong into an article just three days ago. (We should probably MfD those too). Were those referenced in a deleted version of Ether Plus Two or is she/he working up to creating a new article using them? SteveBaker (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I shall try not to add to any flames, internal or external. I appreciate your help. I believe you are right about the images, though they predate the article's deletion and don't seem to have been accessed since then. (Did you look at the images? They mean nothing to me, but perhaps, as a scientist, they mean something to you. For some reason, I am reminded of those line drawings I used to put in my grade 10 homework to try and drum up some brownie points; the ones labelled "Glass" "Water" "Measuring Line" and the like.) The only deletions ("fD"s) I know about are speedies. All the others seem to involve interminable arguments with the terminally thick, and I don't have time for that. (So there go all of today's WP:AGF points for me.) Once again, thanks for your help. Bielle (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:MfD is 'Media for deletion' - and it works just like WP:AfD except that it applies to images, audio and such like. Since these images belong with an article that's been deleted and have no general applicability, they can probably go through some WP:MfD speedy mechanism - I don't know because I've never done it before. I wasn't sure when the article was deleted and worried that this might indicate that User:Noonchester was working up to recreating it - but since they pre-date the last deletion, that's not the case. SteveBaker (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Urgh - that's totally wrong! MfD is 'miscellany for deletion' - I mean't WP:IfD (Images for deletion). SteveBaker (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three revert rule

Thanks for that info. I'll see how it pans out on the page, but hopefully the advice i've given him will stop him from trying to insert this. If it continues, i shall certainly ask an admin to intervene. Regards Owain.davies (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...

i appreciate your concern, but we have more or less sorted it out ourselves...

however, i do have some points to make:

firstly, if everything must be verified by a media source, then that surely means EVERYTHING, so when creating the 'clarendon house grammar school' page, i should have gone and proved that the school exists because I am apparently not trusted to give truthful statements on the site?! So i mean... every possible sentence and every possible word should need to be 'backed up'?! is that what youre saying?!!!!!!

and secondly the terms are not simply some kind of chav slang or something if that is what you are implying, because i am certainly NOT a chav or someone without a proper grasp of the english language. The terms are even being used by a variety of teachers now, and although no 'media texts' use them, they are in fact used by a majority of students in the school now in colloquial speech (which means in everyday talk... NOT in chav talk... not in 'media talk', just when two people are communicating with each other in a common everyday situation), since it was rather inconvenient to use the elongated terms; 'chatham house grammar school for boys' and 'clarendon house grammar school for girls' if you understand this?

and my problem lies with the fact that so many people refer to the schools on a majoritive basis as 'Chaz' and 'Claz' (which do not currently serve any other use in our language may i remind you) and therefore when searching for the schools and reffering to them as thus, will not find what they are looking for, and therefore do you not agree that it would be more appropriate to actually allow that majority to access the information they are looking for as well, rather than just only allowing the few members of the school which still use the full names, or are too old to have even heard of them, to be able to find the information they are searching for?

wb

Iamandrewrice (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - look I'm not making this up - it is important that you understand what the problem is.

Technically, every fact in the encyclopedia should have a reference. We are all very aware of how hard that is to achieve in practice - probably 99% of facts in the encyclopedia don't have them. If we work hard, we can get close: Check for example my articles on the Mini and Mini Moke - nearly every paragraph has a little tag after it that you can click to see the reference for that fact. If you check the book I reference for that fact, you'll see written there exactly what I said. You can (theoretically) verify that the entire article is true. That's one of the reasons that both of those articles have been on the Wikipedia front-page. Note the little gold star at the top left of each of those pages - I worked for four months and read over a dozen books to track down all of the references I needed for them!

But we know we won't get that quality everywhere - it's just not gonna happen for an article about a school.

However there is a sharp distinction between facts that could in principle be verified and those that are in all likelyhood not verifiable. The existance of the school can be found in...oh Edward Heath's biography probably. But your nickname for the school is probably not written down anywhere that someone doubting that it's true (like your opponent in this edit war) can go to check. It doesn't matter that members of the school (including staff) use the term - it matters whether someone can (in principle) go to a public library, ask for such-and-such book and read somewhere within it that "A common nickname for Chatham House school is Chas". You can see that your fact is not just not verified, it's not verifiable. We only have your say-so that it is true - and worse still, you are attending the school which makes it both 'original research' (See: WP:NOR) and a possible cause of bias on your part (See: WP:COI). Facts also have to be notable (See: WP:NOTE) - the fact that you may have a pet frog called 'Gerald' is certainly not notable enough to put into an encyclopedia. The fact that there is a school called "Chatham House" is notable (but only just barely - most schools are not considered notable - thank Edward Heath and Frank Muir for that one!)...so the fact that the current generation of students call the place "Chas" is almost certainly not notable. Worse still - Wikipedia doesn't accept 'neologisms' (See WP:NEO) - new words or new meanings for words are simply not welcome here! This meaning of "Chas" is likely to be one of those. As both I and Owen have pointed out, previous generations of pupils (that's us) didn't use those names - so they are new...neologisms...and they probably don't belong here.

But it's very hard to tell because this fact is neither notable, verified or verifiable and the only person telling us it's true has both a conflict of interest and is performing original research! (Do you see where we're coming from on this one?)

All of these problematic matters with this "fact" of yours are hugely exacerbated by the fact that (a) there is a dispute going on and (b) when you added the "fact", it was written in a frankly unencyclopeadic style. In the event of a dispute like this one, Wikipedians have to get more strict about following the Wikipedia guidelines that are there to help guide people in the event of such a dispute. If there were no dispute - maybe this snippet of information might have survived despite violating nearly every guideline Wikipedia has!

This means that you are CLEARLY in the wrong...not because 'Chas' is or isn't a true name for the school - but because you are not following the guidelines - and WORSE STILL, repeatedly putting it back in despite the (legitimate) concerns of another editor. Edit warring is about as intelligent as yelling "Shall", "Shall not", "Shall", "Shan't" at each other across the playground of a primary school - it's certainly not what we expect from Wikipedians (much less those who went to the prestigious Chatham House School!). So what you did was wrong - mainly because you argued about it, secondarily because the fact itself is almost certainly not something Wikipedia should contain.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OH MY GOD!

i just read your comment on the other guy's profile!

I AM NOW TAKING THIS HIGHER! YOU HAVE JUST GONE ONE STEP TOO FAR BY VERBALLY SLAGGING ME OFF! BY SAYING THAT I WOULD NOT APPARENTLY CARE THAT I 'was braking the rules' WHICH I WAS NOT AWARE OF ANYWAY!

AND HOW I AM 'annoying'

WELL IF I DO NOT RECEIVE A FORMAL APOLOGY YOU CAN REST ASSURED THAT I WILL CERTAINLY BE RAISING THIS ISSUE TO AN AUTHORITY! BECAUSE I KNOW THAT FOR DEFINITE IT IS YOU WHO IS IN THE WRONG THIS TIME BECAUSE YOU ARE UNNALLOWED TO ACT IN SUCH A MANNER!

HOWEVER IF YOU DO NOT REPENT THEN I AM SORRY BUT I CANNOT ALLOW YOU TO ACT IN THIS SAME THOUGHTLESS WAY TO OTHERS AND I WILL ENSURE THAT A REPRESENTATIVE FIGURE HEARS ABOUT THIS!

NOW I HAVE GIVEN YOU A CHANCE...

...BUT IF YOU INTEND TO STAND BEHIND YOUR STATEMENTS THAT I WOULD 'not care about the rules' WHICH I AM VERY OFFENDED BY! AND THAT I AM 'ANNOYING' AS A USER, THEN I WILL CERTAINLY NOT BACK DOWN BECAUSE I HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING WRONG AT ALL HERE ACCORDING TO WHAT I HAVE BEEN AWARE OF AS THE RULES SINCE I AM A NEW USER BUT HAVE TRIED MY BEST TO DONATE KNOWLEDGE TO THE SITE!

AND IF THIS IS YOUR OPPINION THEN I CERTAINLY WON'T MAKE ANY MORE HELPFUL ADDITIONS TO WIKIPEDIA IF I'M GOING TO GET SLAGGED OF LIKE THIS!

IF I DO NOT RECEIVE AN APPOLOGY WITHIN THE UPCOMING TIME PERIOD THEN I MUST ASSUME THAT YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE IN THE RIGHT, WHICH YOU ARE MOST CERTAINLY NOT! I MAY BE NEW TO WIKIPEDIA BUT I KNOW THIS MUCH!

AND IF YOU BLOCK THIS ACCOUNT (WHICH YOU HAVE NO VERIFIED REASON TO DO ANYWAY, MEANING I WOULD HAVE EVEN MORE REASON TO PUSH THIS CASE AGAINST YOU), THEN I HAVE COPIED AND SAVED OUR ENTIRE CONVERSATION AND WILL PUT IT FORWARD TO AN AUTHORITY UTILISING ANOTHER ACCOUNT, INCLUDING THE REFERENCE TO YOUR BLOCKING THIS ACCOUNT IF THAT IS THE COURSE OF ACTION YOU CHOOSE TO TAKE.

IT IS VERY SIMPLE; IF YOU SHOW THAT YOU ARE AWARE THAT WHAT YOU HAVE SAID IS WRONG, THEN I WILL NOT FEEL THE NEED TO PUSH THIS ANY FURTHER.

HOWEVER YOUR DECISION IS UP TO YOU... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamandrewrice (talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Calm down - stop writing in capitals - and read what I just wrote in reply above. You can certainly go to the Wiki admins - that is your right. They'll take one look at this petty revert war and in all likelyhood kick you off the system for a cooling off period. I've been through these things a million times before. I've been here for years - I've got a bunch of featured articles - and numerous awards for dealing with this kind of problem before - I work with the 'Adopt-A-User' program precisely to try to help people like you understand the guidelines and become a good Wikipedian. So I think you can trust what I'm telling you.

1. Revert warring is annoying - you were engaged in a prolonged revert war. So that's a perfectly justified comment that needs no apology.
2. You had repeatedly ignored the other guy's pleas on your talk page for you to read the various guidelines - and yet you just carried on reverting. I had no reason to assume you'd read about WP:3RR either. So my comment that you probably wouldn't obey is also justified and requires no apology.
3. Ignorance of the rules is no defense...and if you'd read the guidelines that you were reminded of (on your talk page) - you'd not have been ignorant.
4. I'm not a Wiki administrator (I have been nominated - but I turned it down). I can't block your account. However, gross 3RR infractions will generally get you a speedy block if someone gets the attention of an admin.
5. If you open another account (especially while blocked) that would be 'sockpuppetry' - which will just get you into deeper trouble Wiki-wise.

So, you don't get an apology because I'm not wrong. I'll point you to one more page that you should probably read first: Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Believe.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the edit summary on your last addition to the paragraph above. See User:Ohmygog. Are you prescient? Was this WP:BEANS, or did your watchlist just show the entry before mine did? Bielle (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Our friend above let slip: "WILL PUT IT FORWARD TO AN AUTHORITY UTILISING ANOTHER ACCOUNT" - so it didn't take much more than getting a headache from all the capital letters to clue me in on possible sockpuppetry. SteveBaker (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read that far. I had to go and look for some aspirin. Bielle (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Now... if you do not understand 'Steve' that going to one wikipedian and slagging off another is wrong, then i would say you have a lot to learn. Implying without any evidence that i 'probably wudnt care about the rules anyway' is slander! and if you accept no repentment for this then i really cannot tolerate that lack of respect for a fellow editor. Either you understand that what you have done is wrong, and i will let this go, or i WILL take this up higher and trust me, that is a promise to you, because you know that you are entirely in the wrong here with regards to this. I am not even talking about the edit war, as that was between me and another user, which we actually sorted out ourselves after we both discussed the rules and our situations, so first of all that had nothing to do with you to interupt anway. However, the fact that you then tried to drag down my reputation to the other editor shows a lot about youre character. I understand that you may have said it in a moment of passing, but if you do not accept this then I will ensure that you are not able to operate this sort of 'character' on wikipedia again.

So basically, if you didnt bother reading all of that properly, like you obviously didn't with my other message, i will summarise it for you: -you have violated the code of conduct one would expect from a fellow wikipedia editor. -you have failed to realise what you have done. -if you do not accept what you have done and realise it was wrong, i will ensure that you WILL realise.

thank you, i expect a reply shortly...Iamandrewrice (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find, Iamandrewrice, that the person who did not finish reading your message above, all in capital letters, was me. I can't see that Steve should be blamed for my lapses. I get headaches when people are shouting. However, the message wasn't addressed to me in the first place, so the fact that I didn't finish reading it should have nothihng to do with any of your interactions with Steve. Bielle (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have blocked the user for 24 hours. See also the user's comments at User talk:Owain.davies. - jc37 22:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

FIRSTLY, I WASNT ADRESSING YOU BIELLE, AND SECONDLY, AS YOU HAVE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT YOU HAVE DONE I AM NOW DEFINITELY GOING TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION, AND I CAN VERY MUCH ASSURE YOU THAT YOU SHOULD FIND YOURSELF SOME LEGAL ADVICE. Iamandrewrice (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear - I'd hoped you would learn from your short wikibreak that you just cannot take this confrontational attitude. (I'd at least hoped you'd use the time to unstick that pesky broken CapsLock key!) Threats of legal action are not realistic - I could go on to list a half dozen bullet points about why not - but that would probably just increase your level of frustration so I won't. It's a threat that's as empty as a large empty thing with 0.9 nanoPascal vacuum inside. Your previous threat to call in the Wikipedia admins had precisely the effect I told you it would. You got blocked - there is a reason for that. If a Wiki admin reads your last post you'll almost certainly get another, longer block. I am not calling for that. The consequences of that (based on past experience) is that you'd probably come back a week later, say the same kind of thing again - and then you'd get a lifetime block and that would be the end of that. This isn't me threatening you - this is me, the patient person trying to help a new Wikipedian find his feet in this strange place.

Let me tell you a true story: There was a guy by the name of User:WiArthurHu. He posted a lot of photos of toy cars that he'd made to articles about the real cars. We reverted them as 'unencyclopeadic', he put them back - we told him nicely why this wasn't acceptable, he went on doing it - he got a 24 hour 'cooling off' ban - he came back making even louder protests <YOU ARE HERE> and within a few days he got a week-long ban, many people put in lots of their spare time to try to calm him down when his ban was over. He threatened legal action - we ignored his empty threat - he went on ranting and being a general pain in the neck - that got him a month-long ban. He tried using alternate accounts to get in (that's called 'SockPuppetry' and it's easily detected) those accounts were also blocked - and his one month ban turned into a lifetime ban. Several months later, he appealed to be allowed back into Wikipedia on the grounds that he'd seen the error of his ways and would now participate as a calm, sensible Wikipedian. He got his second chance (against howls of protest from owners of articles he's 'attacked') on the condition that he didn't make any more contributions to car articles - or to post to the user pages of any of the people he'd attacked in the past without that post being pre-approved by a WikiAdmin. But sadly it took only a few weeks before he was banned again (I'm not sure why) - so now WiArthurHu is forever prevented from participating in one of the biggest things to happen to the Internet - he won't get another appeal. That's really sad. If you plan to remain confrontational - and if you want a glimpse into your immediate future - do a search for WiArthurHu - the whole sorry episode is laid out in Wikipedia records. You are about 1% of the way into that...but trust me, it's no fun.

So - please - don't go down that path. I beg you to just calm down and start listening - for your sake, not mine. I'm not "out to get you" - I'm honestly trying to help by explaining how Wikipedia works and how you can help us to build an encyclopedia. I have a son of my own (16 years old) and I know how hard it can be to climb down from a position of outrage - but right now, that's what you have to do. I know you're smart or you wouldn't be at Chatham House - so please, use your brain to override your hormomes and start listening. If don't want to listen to me (I could understand that), then at least go to WP:Adopt a user and find someone there who can help you.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

hmmmm you really fail to understand. firstly, i am not talking about the edit war incident, as i understand that i was in the wrong there due to ignorance of the rules. HOWEVER! the fact that you then went to another user and then spoke unkindly of me is what i find unnacceptable. I have already started to find help on making a formal complaint, of which i am going to make.

and hahaha! if you think im that stupid that i couldnt make another account without being detected then you really must be the stupid one. (and nothing on the scale of sockpuppetery is meant by this) I understand more than you think...

And please stop stereotyping me as a boy just because I go to this school!

Expect my complaint SOON!

Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - so you understand you were in the wrong over the edit war. Do you agree that this could possibly be construed to be 'annoying' to other editors? You were only ignorant of the rules because you didn't read (or didn't care about) User:Owain.davies's repeated attempts to end the war by getting you to read WP:V and WP:CITE. I read what he'd written to you on your talk page before I posted my remarks to him and to you. Clearly you didn't pay attention to WP:V/WP:CITE or you would have ceased trying to add your 'fact' to the article far sooner.

Hence, it was a reasonable assumption on my behalf that you wouldn't pay attention WP:3RR either. Now you are making threats of breaking WP:SOCK after I pointed out to you that this is not allowed and you already got handed a block for violation of WP:LEGAL (which, in fairness, you may not have known about - but which ought to be obvious). It is very clear that you do not in fact care about learning about - or following - Wikipedia policies. How you can continue to be outraged about a perfectly true statement that I made is beyond me.

Again, I recommend reading: Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man - which becomes more relevent to you with every passing post. I know you are frustrated because you have no way to "get back at" people who are involved here - but you don't have any way to do that. Every post you make is just digging a deeper hole for you to climb out of.

As for having an alternate account - for the purposes of continuing to edit/post during a ban. Well, except under extremely special circumstances (which don't apply here) - this is a straight forward voilation of WP:SOCK - even the threat of doing this is something that can get you blocked. Sock puppets are easily tracked and clobbered by the Admins and if you take that route you'll be looking at a lifetime ban.

Remember also, this is Wikipedia - everything you say here can be read by everyone and will stay here in perpetuity. A click on 'User contributions' will locate all the posts you made to everyone along the way. Hence, I notice that you are now threatening User:Jc37 (who is a highly respected WikiAdmin!) Eeek! Your empty threats won't impress an Admin who has been through this even more times than I have - and saying "...IF YOU CHOOSE TO ARGUE THAT I AM WRONG THEN I WILL HAVE TO INVOLVE YOU IN THE ACCUSATION..." is strongly inadvisable.

Well, I've tried my best to advise you - I really want to help. But I guess you just have to find out what'll happen the hard way. You'll see that I added some links to help you take your dispute to 'higher levels' in my reply to your post on User talk:Owain.davies. However, you've already invoked a WikiAdmin - which is about as high as you're able to go. I hope the ban that you will almost certainly incur will be brief. Good luck!

SteveBaker (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

well... now this just goes to show how ignorant you really are of the rules. I am very much entitled to inform User:Jc37 that if he decides to violate real life LEGAL passings, then I will have to involve him in my complaint against you. If you think that the highest I am taking this is to a wikipedia admin then you are very much mistaken. And you really cudnt have been reading what i wrote. tut tut. I told you all along this had nothing to do with the edit war, as you just barged into that even after I and the other user had come to a conclusion. This was about, and still is about, the fact that you told another user that I 'probably wouldnt care about the rules,' and implying that as I am a user that I am 'annoying,' which I am promising you, is most certainly not allowed, which is why User:Jc37 has simply got themselves in trouble now, as they blocked me making reference that I accused you of slander, without actually checking the slander, so now both of you are in violation. You had no right to assume that I 'didnt care about the rules' and i most certainly find this insulting! You had no evidence to back up your claim, and regardless of even if you did, it still is unnallowed. I seriously suggest you rethink who I am. You are misjudging me entirely here... and if you fail to understand, I can assure you I am certainly in position to make you reconsider. Also, with regards to the sockpuppetery, although I again made no reference to saying that i was going to do it at all, which is what you seem to be implying, I am simply assuring you that I have already covered my back with regards to this account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamandrewrice (talk • contribs) 18:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> OK - I tried my best to warn you. Go ahead - rain down the fire and brimstone on my head. SteveBaker (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

wow... you really are confident arnt you.. trying to protect your macho image... trying to put yourself up as all masculine against the little girl. Well whatever. Youre confidence will get you nowhere, as I have already put forward the complaint. I can assure you that this is not some little girl that is just going to be intimidated by YOU! ann...

Iamandrewrice (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The above user has been blocked for making legal threats. This notice courtesy of the blocking admin. —Kurykh 20:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I did my best to try to take the heat out of the situation - sadly, I failed. SteveBaker (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep up the good work

SteveBaker you rock! I can always rely on your replies in the help desk to be well thought out and reasonable. It seems that others sometimes just shout the first thing that comes to mind without fully reading the question or the other replies. Also your discussion above concerning "Your post on the computing desk today" really made my morning. Your skepticism is appreciated by the readers of the ref desk. As a reader of the reference desk I must ask how you get any work done, since I know how much time I kill just reading the posts. 128.223.131.21 (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Didn't realize I wasn't signed in. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! It makes it all worth-while. I'm generally stuck waiting for 2 million lines of C++ code to compile...which may mean nothing to you if you aren't a computer geek but certainly explains where the time comes from! SteveBaker (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Torque vs Acceleration once again

Hey Steve, you may remember my question on the RD concerning the effects of torque and horsepower on automobile performance. I never really fully grasped it yet, but decided to take a break, read and learn some more, then go about tackling the problem once again. One article I read was [[1]].

The article goes on to say that your car will accelerate the hardest at the torque peak within that gear-agreeing with what you previously stated. However, a section later-under "Maximum Acceleration vs. Power"-the author states that "Shift to maximize engine POWER, not engine torque! Which is *exactly* the same as saying shift to maximize transmission output torque".

Later, the article says that "Applying the maximum power rule, we'd like to race down the 1/4 mile with the engine always as close to 6500 RPM as possible. If we had a continuously variable transmission, the lowest E.T. would be achieved by keeping the engine dead on 6500 RPM. 5500 is not the best; at any vehicle speed, the engine would put out more torque but the transmission will have a less advantageous gear ratio, so you get a net loss of force to the tires. Apply P = F * V or P = T * RPM to prove this."

This seems contradictory to what you have said-that keeping the car as close as possible to the torque peak will give the fastest possible acceleration and 1/4 mile time. Who is correct? If the author is correct, why does engine power = transmission output torque?

Thanks a lot. Acceptable (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, there is a lot of incorrect stuff out there. The simplest refutation is that torque is rotational force - that's what the word means. You can convert torque into a linear force knowing only the radius of the drive wheels. Using the F=ma formula we can convert linear force into linear accelleration. Since the mass of the car and the radius of the wheels doesn't change, we can CLEARLY state: Torque at the wheels is directly proportional to Accelleration down the track. You just can't argue with that - it's the most basic physics imaginable! If you want the most accelleration then you need the most torque. QED.

Where the confusion arises is in two things:

1. If you plot the torque versus RPM curve, some cars (mostly older cars with huge cylinders and a rather low redline) have the peak of the torque curve at the maximum RPM - so the advice to shift at redline is OK - but others (like my beloved MINI Cooper'S) most certainly do not. The peak of my car's torque curve is at about 4500 rpm - and it's redline is set at 7200 rpm. So you hear a lot of people who don't understand the math - but who learned how to drive on cars where the peak of the torque curve IS the maximum RPM. Those people are hard to convince.
2. If you aren't forced to shift because you hit redline (again, not an issue on older cars) then there is this interesting question of whether to shift at maximum torgue and suffer from having less torque at lower RPM in your new gear (as your would with an older car) - or whether to stick it out in the lower gear (even though torque is starting to fall off) in order that when you do shift, you're going fast enough to get enough RPM's in that gear to have decent torque there too. This is a matter of great debate because it depends on things like how fast the revs drop off as you shift and how long it takes you to shift - if you don't shift quickly and match the revs precisely then maybe it is better to shift at redline...but I can prove by example that I can haul my car from 0 to 60mph about a half second faster if I shift earlier than waiting to reach redline. As I explained last time around, I ended up having to write a computer program to figure it out - and it took weeks of practice until I could actually do what the computer program told me to do! Shifting quickly, matching revs and doing it at the precise time the reading on the tach says so (which is different for each gear!) - whilst simultaneously not running your car off the road - is HARD!

As for the 'engine power' thing: There is a formula relating horsepower and torque that arrives at this conclusion: "power is proportional to torque times rpm" - with some constant of proportionality that depends on the units you choose. Let's think about that rather carefully: When we are past the magic 4500 rpm (for my MINI) - as the rpm INCREASES, the torque DECREASES. BUT so long as the rpm goes up faster than the torque falls off (which it does), the engine is still producing more horsepower at 7200 rpm than it does at 4500 rpm. But that doesn't matter - we don't give a damn about horsepower - we only care about accelleration...which is proportional to torque...so we want to keep the car in the high torque band and not push it to redline before we shift.

Sadly, the example given in that link of yours is of a 1999 Neon. As he points out, the shape of the torque curve for that particular engine is such that there is no time before redline when a down-shift gets you more torque - so you have to shift at redline. He's right - that's EXCELLENT advice FOR A 1999 NEON! But you cannot generalise that result to say ALL cars need to be shifted at redline. If you plot the exact same table that he does - but using the torque-versus-RPM curve for a supercharged 2005 MINI Cooper'S engine, you come to a different conclusion - which is that you have to shift BEFORE redline or you'll have so little torque by the time the revs get that high that you'll be beaten by someone who 'short shifts' well before reaching redline.

SteveBaker (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much got a grasp of it now, except for the torque peak horsepower peak stuff. After reading the articles that I get from Googling "Torque vs Horsepower", it seems that the majority of them says to keep the engine at the horsepower peak. But intuitively, looking at your explanation and the formula, it seems very reasonable to keep the engine at the torque peak.

However, this excerpt from [2] is bothering me:

"Finally, operating at the power peak means you are doing the absolute best you can at any given car speed, measuring torque at the drive wheels. I know I said that acceleration follows the torque curve in any given gear, but if you factor in gearing vs car speed, the power peak is *it*. An example, yet again, of the LT1 Vette will illustrate this. If you take it up to its torque peak (3600 rpm) in a gear, it will generate some level of torque (340 foot pounds times whatever overall gearing) at the drive wheels, which is the best it will do in that gear (meaning, that's where it is pulling hardest in that gear).

However, if you re-gear the car so it is operating at the power peak (5000 rpm) *at the same car speed*, it will deliver more torque to the drive wheels, because you'll need to gear it up by nearly 39% (5000/3600), while engine torque has only dropped by a little over 7% (315/340). You'll net a 29% gain in drive wheel torque at the power peak vs the torque peak, at a given car speed."

In addition, concerning the "engine power = transmission output torque", Power = Torque x RPM divided by a constant. However, Transmission output torque = engine torque x the various gear ratios. So the statement is saying that Power = Engine torque x gear ratios, which is what I don't understand.

Thanks once again. Acceptable (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You are confused because you missed a step and hence your last statement "Power = Engine torque x gear ratios" isn't true:

1. Engine Torque = Torque at the wheels x gear ratio -- This is obvious from how gearboxes work.
2. Engine power = Engine torque x RPM -- That's a standard engineering equation (except for the "/ 5282: constant that I left out)

Substituting (1) into (2), we get:

• Engine power = Torque at wheels x gear_ratio x RPM

You missed the x RPM bit - which is the crucial thing. Because of that, the peak of the engine power curve and the peak of the torque curves don't have to line up. As revs go up, engine torque (and hence wheel torque) can start falling off - but because the RPM is still going up, (torque x rpm) can still be increasing even though torque is decreasing. If adding 10% more RPM only reduces torque by 5% then engine power is still getting bigger. But it's torque that we really care about - I don't give a damn how much horsepower I'm getting - I only care about how much accelleration I'm getting and that's all about torque.

The trouble is that the shape of the torque vs RPM curve is dramatically different from one car to another - and that's very significant here. On an electric car (or a true hybrid like the Prius), the torque curve is almost completely flat. You get as much torque at 1 rpm as you do at 8000 rpm. You don't even need a gearbox!

SteveBaker (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Engine Torque = Torque at the wheels x gear ratio

Shouldn't it be the other way around?

1. Torque at the wheels = Engine torque x gear ratio

Acceptable (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a ratio - it just depends on which way around you write it 17:8 or 8:17. But it doesn't matter - go ahead and divide by the gear ratio if it helps. The main point here is that the RPM term is in the final equation. That's the thing that prevents torque and power being aspects of the same thing - which is the heart of the confusion here. SteveBaker (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading some more (every article in the first 4 pages of Google results), I think I know where I am being confused.

On a car with fixed gear ratios, the torque peak on any given gear is the point where acceleration is the greatest-like you stated. This is because, on a given gear, the maximum acceleration will happen when the output torque or wheel torque is greatest. Since the gear ratio doesn't change on a given gear, the sole determining factor of output torque is the engine torque. Therefore, very simply, the torque peak will provide the greatest output torque and greatest acceleration.

Now, in the previous articles I referred to such as [3], when the author says to keep the car on the horsepower peak because then you can gear up the ratio and you will experience a net gain of output torque, he is referring to a "CVT'!! But on a fixed-ratio transmission, one cannot gear up the gear ratios on-the-fly.

As a result, on a fixed-ratio transmission vehicle, the torque peak will give the best acceleration, while on a CVT, the Horsepower peak will give the best acceleration.

Am I right?

If so, I'd like to just sneak in one more question. As a result of all this, it seems to me that when tuning a racing car for on-track performance, it is ideal to tune it so that the majority of its time spent on the track will be near its torque peak for a fixed-ratio transmission vehicle. Is this correct? If so, however, my guide to Forza Motorsport, a game known for this relatively accurate portrayal and simulation of cars, explicitly advises to tune the cars (which are all have fixed-ratio transmissions) so that the majority of the time spend on the track is near the horsepower peak RPM ranges. Is the guide wrong?

Thanks so much. Acceptable (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

On the MINI CVT that I've driven on a couple of occasions when my car has been in for service, the engine management software keeps the RPM more or less constant as you drive. On the 'normal' setting, it nails the rev counter at 2500 rpm no matter what speed you are at (at least between about 10mph and 60mph) - if you press the 'sport' button (which is supposed to give you best accelleration) then it nails the RPM precisely at the peak of the torque curve - which on the CVT's engine was about 3750 rpm. In effect, the gas pedal isn't a gas pedal anymore - pushing on the pedal changes the transmission ratio!

As for games...well...my job is as a games programmer. I'm not familiar with Forze - but in general game designers follow realism only to the point where it starts to affect gameplay fun - then it goes out of the window! However, as I've explained, for SOME cars that's good advice because the peak of the torque curve is so close to the power peak that you'll hit redline before you'll hit the theoretical best shift point. SteveBaker (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If I could bring your attention to a table found on [4]. Towards, the bottom of the page, there are 3 graphs that show RPM vs HP vs Torque for a CVT and fixed-ratio transmission vehicle.

The graphs show that a CVT would probably benefit more from staying on the HP peak, but a fixed-ratio transmission vehicle should be kept closer to the torque peak. However, his statement at the end "The more horsepower the more torque at the wheel" is only applicable to CVT's, not fixed-ratio transmissions. Acceptable (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(Peeks in the room) - I really don't want to interrupt this, but I have to say that this has, so far, been one of the best and informative discussions I've witnessed recently on Wikipedia (all that and I think I may have learned a thing or two as well : )

(We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion : ) - jc37 11:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Just so you see this first, please don't get mad at me over on User Talk:Iamandrewrice for calling you rude, I'm sure it was an honest mistake but the poor girl seems to have her head spinning right now and I figure siding with her might help her calm down. I've seen you around the ref desks I think and you don't seem rude to me but pointing that out won't diffuse the situation, and I don't want a huge fight on her talk page because it'd just make the whole mess worse. oh, and Hi. Kuronue | Talk 05:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

As you can see (in sections "..." and "OH MY GOD!" above), I've tried very hard to smooth the waters - but to no avail. Every attempt I've made has resulted in an explosion of threats. I'm glad that the admins have stepped in - let's hope we can get this user calmed down to the point where she can be reasoned with. Incidentally, I first assumed she was a he - having (not unreasonably) parsed User:Iamandrewrice as I_am_Andrew_Rice and because she appears to attend a school which has historically been an all-boys school. SteveBaker (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying Kuronue, that Steve Baker was in the right to insult me? Iamandrewrice (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• And no Steve, you have made no attempt to cool anything down, because all i ask of you is for you to appologize for insulting me to another user. As soon as you say that then this whole thing will stop, but until then, the complaint is still there. And if you did your research, you would see that certain Clarendon pupils who may choose to participate in subjects not held there may use Chatham House's functionings for those. Unless you would in fact like to suggest that I am a boy?! And with regards to I am andrew rice... think about it... its a play on words...(the andrew does not mean the name andrew... try breaking it down further!!!!!)
  

Again, if you wish to discuss anything further with me, you should apologize for using insulting and derigatory language towards me on that other users profile. Iamandrewrice (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you do not apologize just shows that you are overproud and unaible to accept when you are in the wrong. Iamandrewrice (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

o omg... are you... anything to do with... Lee Baker?! Iamandrewrice (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I have no idea who Lee Baker is. SteveBaker (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I am still awaiting your apology! Not only that, but I KNOW that you are EVERYTHING to do with Lee Baker! I know more than you THINK! Yours sincerely, Amanda Iamandrewrice (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have said, clearly and plainly, that I have no idea who Lee Baker is. Are you accusing me of lying? (Be careful how you answer that.) SteveBaker (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not what I am saying at all... I am simply bringing up the point that you said you attended Chatham House Grammar School, claiming to know so much about it, yet you live in Texas. Iamandrewrice (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE:

This user is an Old Ruymian.

I was in Larkin's in my first year - then I spent two years in the Duke of York's private boarding school in Nairobi, Kenya, then three more years in Chatham House (in Thorntons IIRC) before graduating a year early then three years at the University of Kent at Canterbury for my first degree. Now I work in Texas because the money is better and the work more challenging than in the UK. People move around! SteveBaker (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I still await your appology, which I really hope you can relieve yourself of pride enough to give. Yours sincerely, Ben Iamandrewrice (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That conversation is over. You don't get an apology (I have nothing to apologize for and I completely stand by my previous statements - which have certainly proven to be true throughout subsequent events). I really don't need to hear any more of your random blathering about Lee Baker or anything else. If you want to play nice and chat amicably about Chatham House and related subjects, then that's fine. SteveBaker (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Er... yes, you do have something to appologize about... you accused me of not having a care for the rules. You were therefore disobeying the WP:AGF policy... as if you read it carefully, you will see that it says you should always assume that users are trying to help the site, and if you read even harder, you will see how it mentions that htis is applicable especially to NEW users, as it mentions they are unknowing of the rules... however, YOU, took a general disregard to this, and simply said to another user that i didnt care about the rules... even though I was new, and therefore did not understand them. It is for that reason that even though I broke the rules when first editing wikipedia, you were more at fault than me because of that policy, in which I was excused for being new, and you should have allowed for that. The fact that you didn't, and were rather rude to me (ruder than anyone else i have yet to meet on this site, and i can assure you I have had some pretty innapropriate dealings with people) shows that yes you do owe me an appology... and not doing so is just sheer stubbornness and pride. Iamandrewrice (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)