Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 03:49, 18 October 2008 (Signing comment by Frankga123 - "→Incoming-Line Current: "). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Binary Prefixes

One thing I've learned...stick to your guns. --Wtshymanski 17

47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Radio propagation

Thanks for the edits to Radio propagation. Just thought I'd say ... J. D. Redding 15:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it needs more work yet - but it's sunny and +30 forecast for this weekend, so computer hobbies take a back seat for now. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Invention of Radio

You might like to contribute to the above article, where there is a certain amount of crackpottery concerning EM waves.Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Crackpottery abounds. I'll look, but my patience wears thin. Had to break someone of the notion that radio waves travel by conduction, for example. --Wtshymanski (talk)

User:Wtshymanski/Editcounter

I've moved the editcounter here; you accidentally created it in the mainspace. Ironholds 16:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem :). In future just have User:Wtshymanski/SUBNAMEGOESHERE. The only difference would be if you were including a subpage into your userpage, in which case it would just be /SUBNAMEGOESHERE. Ironholds 17:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Your opinion on hardware inclusion criterion is requested on the Personal Computer discussion page. Alatari (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Peace

Hey, mate. I just wanted to make a gesture of peace regarding our windmill disagreement. The image you added is probably the best one for that section and should replace the image of the non-functioning mill that is there now. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

RS-232

I have again reverted your edits to the RS-232 article. If you have concerns please discuss them on the talk page as I have already requested. Your most recent edit reintroduced unsourced material that is directly contradicted by a citation and has no place in the article. Additionally, piping a link from 8250 to 16550 is an inappropriate link - Easter eggs links are contrary to the manual of style. Happy to discuss, but please, on the talk page. CrispMuncher (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

voltage

please quit removing my edit about high voltage, it's quite obvious that your idea of high voltage is conflated with the idea of high wattage and high current.

think of voltage as how fast water is flowing through a pipe and current as how much water is flowing through a pipe. water flying at a few hundred times the speed of sound is hardly hazardous if there are only few molecules of them -- and the same thing can be said of voltage.

surviving a high voltage shock is trivial if the current is low. i am not advertising for taser. i'm dispelling the myth that high voltage somehow equals to danger -- because it's not. as i wrote, everyone who lives in dry areas shock themselves with a few thousand volt of electricity every few seconds just by walking. that's the same voltage as a taser after initial discharge --if not more --and most don't even feel them.

the same thing can be said of CRT. CRT monitors & TV are basically small particle accelerators that shoots electrons out at up to a few hundred thousand volts, put your hand in front of a TV screen and you'll be shocked with a few hundred thousand volts of electricity. and it does nothing other than move the hair on your arm.

and on the flip side, back in ww2, U boat seamen often get electrocuted by submarine batteries running at 6 volts.

if you dont like my reference to taser, feel free to remove that and add something else that's in the 50k-100k volt range. but dont remove every piece of information i put in. cos it's lame and it only feeds the ignorance.

also, 23 people dead in a matter of years in an entire country is absolutely within the envelope of acceptable risk. there are hundreds if not thousands of every day activities that we consider safe that kills more people than taser-- either by death rate or by absolute numbers. did you know a few hundred people die each year from caffeine induced heart failure after drinking too much coke or coffee? does that mean that pepsi cola should be considered a lethal substance?

Philosophy.dude (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that very patronizing explanation of voltage. Doubtless I had no idea of what "voltage" was before this, and I will find your home-spun and misleading hydraulic analogy indispensible in my chosen line of work. (The *usual* plumbing analogy is to compare voltage with pressure and current wtih flow...your interpretation is stunningly original.) The article currently (last time I looked) says that contact with a high voltage source of sufficient energy is dangerous - so, 30,000 volt spark to a doorknob is one thing, but sticking your tongue into a 120 volt light bulb socket is quite another. This is, I think, what you're trying to say.

How many volts in a television CRT? Really?

It's now up to 24 Taser-related deaths in Canada, by the way...there was another in the week or so since my last edit. I'm glad you think that's an acceptable risk. I'm not sure how this supports the contention that exposure to high voltage is not dangerous; presumably a Taser is intended not to be lethal and yet it still has a high chance of killing its subjects. If these were randomly distributed deaths, you could argue that if I'd bought a 6-49 lottery ticket each year since the Taser had been introduced in Canada, I'd have roughly the same odds of winning the big prize or dying in a Taser-related incident. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Incoming-Line Current

Hey Wtshymanski, I was just checking to see if you could help explain the Incoming Line Current. It's more than just a word/phrase since my teacher decided that the entire class should write an essay about it. I couldn't find anything on wikipedia about it at all. So I decided to make my own article about it. And since in my book it mentioned that it is sometimes called "The Mains", I figured that it ought to be also added to Mains Electricity.

Here is a direct quote from my book about Incoming Line Current:

"Electricity is usually supplied to buildings in the United States by 60 Hz alternating current with a nominal rms of 200-240 volts. These are termed nominal because, as users operate various resistances, the voltages constantly fluctuate, as illustrated by Ohm's law. This power is called the incoming-line current (sometimes called the mains) and is supplied in the form of a three-phase power cycle(Figure 5-4). One of the "hot" wires is alwasy half the incoming voltage above-ground potential, while the other is always the same voltage below-ground potential. In the United States each carries 110-120 volts. With 60 Hz alternating current, the two hot wires reverse their polarity 120 times per second. Bringing incoming line current from the neutral (or ground) wire and one of the hot wires produces a potential difference of 110-120 volts. Because the two lines are not in phase with one another, using incoming current from both hot wires produces a potential difference that is less than the sm of the two single phases. The usual result is about 210 volts. Nearly all x-ray equipment operates from an incoming line of 210-220 volts."

Richard R. Carlton, Arlene McKenna Adler (2000). Principles of Radiographic Imaging: An Art and a Science. Thomson Delmar Learning.

Check it out and let me know what you think. I'm very VERY new to the technicalities of electricity. I just figured that if it's worthy to be a word worth writing an essay on, it ought to be good enough to have a wikipedia article on, or at least be an accessory to another article, such as Mains electricity.

TTYL & Thanks!

P.S. I'm new to editing things on wikipedia, so i was't sure of exactly what i ought to have done to get the new info on wikipedia.

Thanks for the help! I think I'm starting to get the hang of things, both on Misplaced Pages and in electricity/radiology physics. Right now were discussing the creation of the x-ray beam, the cathode/anode assembly, cooling curves and other neat things. I'm hoping to add alot of useful information from what I learn, so there's gonna be a lot of work to do and articles to add next next 2 years. Thanks again! -Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankga123 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarity

Your comment on "virtual ground" page has got me wondering about the general quality of technical articles. Do you have examples of poor wiki entries? --wikirpg (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for restoring the text with this edit. I didn't realize I had removed it when I added the image. I'm pretty sure it's flex conduit, but I'm not even an amateur on the subject of shielding. Based on the research I did on commercial cites, this is what matched the descriptions. Feel free to remove. _{talk at me} 02:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)