Wiki Article
User talk:Constant314
Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net
Welcome...
Hello, Constant314, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! SpinningSpark 16:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't even know I had a user page until today. Thanks for the greeting and I apologize for it taking so long.
Telegrapher's Equations and Heaviside Condition
[edit]Hi, sorry I don't have an account and hope I'm formatting this correctly. Can we discuss your reversion of my edits on the Telegrapher's equations? I won't quibble over the edits on the Transatlantic Cable page, those were unimportant. But I don't understand why you didn't find the reference and text I added to the Telegrapher's Equation page, clarifying the Heaviside condition, as useful. I added it because I wanted to know what the condition was, and had to dig through primary sources to find it, so I thought I'd save others the trouble.
You said practically no cable is operated under those conditions. But in the past, loading coils or even high permeability magnetic tape or wire wrapped around the core were indeed used to more closely approach the Heaviside condition; see Practical use, and I can dig up more references on the web if you want.
And more to the point, why does the practical application (or not) of this condition in real cables dictate whether this information should be included in the article or not? Right now, if someone reads the Telegrapher's Equations page, there is no information available as to what conditions would allow a lossy line to transmit signals without distortion. Even if this arrangement of line constants hadn't ever been used in practice, wouldn't we want to at least note the condition just for academic interest? Can't we get something on the Telegrapher's Equation page which at least links to the Heaviside Condition from the appropriate place? Thanks, InductorMan
- Have a look at this chart for a typical coaxial cable:
- The Heaviside condition is G/ωC = R/ωL. That is where the blue curve intersects a red curve. For trans-Atlantic cable using gutta-percha, use the red curve labeled "Med" . To make the blue curve coinside with the red "Med" curve, you would have to increase inductance by 8 orders of magnitude. It isn't practical. If you did you would have a cable that met the Heaviside condition for frequencies below 0.01Hz. It would not be usable for telegraphy. It is true that they did use permalloy loading to increase the inductance, but they never got close to the Heaviside condition. Constant314 (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh that's very interesting, I have never seen the actual parameter values laid out like this.
- However I don't really believe this touches on the issue at hand. Don't you think a page on the Telegrapher's Equations which doesn't include the Heaviside condition is incomplete? Not only is it of theoretical interest, but it drove actual design practice.
- On the theoretical side, the Telegrapher's equations page is a page about a mathematical approximation. In this context, I still feel that it's important to indicate the Heaviside condition to a reader. Even if this condition is not practically achievable, the whole purpose of Heaviside's work was to identify the sources of dispersion, was it not? The reason that the Telegrapher's Equations exist was because Heaviside was interested in finding conditions under which the impediment to communication caused by dispersion might be addressed, as I understand it. Aren't we obfuscating the ultimate conclusion he reached, if we don't mention the condition he found?
- On the practical side, I'm a design engineer myself, so I really do appreciate that you don't want a bunch of mathematically correct but practically useless garbage cluttering up a useful knowledge base like Wikipedia. But I don't think this falls under that heading. I haven't personally acquired a deep understanding of the details of practical transmission line theory (which is why I'm reading about it on Wikipedia), but I do know that people spent money on mu metal tape wrapping. It must have provided some benefit, and while I'm not a historian it seems like this approach was guided by an attempt to reach Heaviside's condition.
- It feels like we can achieve both of our goals at the same time. I for one am just always curious what the theoretical answer might be even if the conditions are impractical, and whether approaching that theoretical answer might be useful. I think others might have the same curiosity. It seems like you want to make sure that useless, impractical crud doesn't clutter EE related pages, right?
- The lossy section of the Telegrapher's Equations page could link to the Heaviside condition page, with a note that "practically speaking these conditions can't be achieved with actual transmission line materials, although attempts were made to approach them with added inductance provided by a wrapping of magnetic material around the conductor" or something like that. I volunteer to dig up some references to actual loaded transmission lines, and how close they approach (or don't) the Heaviside condition to support this qualification, if that would be helpful.
- What do you think?
- -InductorMan 157.131.205.57 (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I would like to see some references regaining loaded cable. You might want to look at [[1]] which has data on the 1928 submarine cable. Particularly look at figure 4, which shows the loading profile. The inductance ranges from 5.6 mH/nm (nm is nautical mile) in the unloaded end sections to 205 mH/nm in the maximally loaded middle section. That is a factor of about 37, or 1.5 orders of magnitude. That is about a factor of a million short of the Heaviside condition. But notice that they increased the inductance toward the middle of the cable. These guys knew what they were doing. They were optimizing the overall dispersion rather than trying to meet the Heaviside condition on particular sections. I don't know what method they used, but I strongly suspect that they used filter theory and treated the sections as lumped elements. Credit is due to the telegrapher's equations for telling them that they can treat the sections as lumped elements.
- Here is a plot of the propagation velocity.
Newfoundland-Azores 1928 Submarine Telegraph Cable Estimated Velocity vs. Frequency - You can see that the benefit of the extra inductance is that it flattens out the velocity curve between 10 and 400 Hz which is where the cable operated. It also increased the delay, which was acceptable.
- I regard the Heaviside condition as a mathematical curiosity, since L, C, G, and R are all functions of frequency. They also change with the daily temperature cycles. Interestingly, for modern dielectrics, G/ωC converges to the loss tangent of the dielectric for frequencies above about 0.1 Hz. The only way to operate in the Heaviside condition is to make R/ωL approach a constant. Since R already increases as the square root of frequency due to skin effect, you would need an inductance that decreases as the square root of frequency. It really is not feasible.
- However, the for data cables, the secret to low dispersion is simple. Just make G/ωC and R/ωL small. In the coax chart above, that means anything above 1 MHz. No one attempts to increase inductance of cables today, because every method of increasing inductance requires some frequency dependent magnetic material and it increases delay. Today, what they are adding is air to the dielectric to make G and C as small as possible which reduces delay and attenuation. Dispersion is handled by adaptive equalization in the receiver.
- The bottom line, for me, is pointing people to the Heaviside condition to explain dispersion is like pointing them to a blind alley. Constant314 (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have to say I don't agree with this line of reasoning at all. I don't argue your point that uselessly simplified mathematical models are... well, useless. But I don't think it's even necessary to address this question, in order to answer the question of whether the link should be there or not. The link should be there because it's a core theoretical conclusion of the theory which forms the subject matter of the page.
- The way I see it, the "Telegrapher's equations" page is a page about a particular mathematical model. And the Heaviside condition not only explains dispersion in this particular mathematical model, it is literally one of the sought-after results which inspired the creation of the telegrapher's equations in the first place. Did it solve the practical problem? I'm learning it did not. But was it one of the main answers which the equations sought to answer? I think so.
- If you agree with the above statement, I really would strongly insist that the Heaviside condition should be linked from somewhere in the page, and with whatever kind of disclaimer you think necessary to accompany it. Absolutely let's exactly how practically useful or useless it is: that's even more valuable than just linking the theoretical solution alone. Or better yet let's link some solutions used in practice (which I have to say I'm unqualified to provide).
- Obviously this is my subjective opinion. I'm not going to submit another edit if you feel the need to delete all such edits. But I would feel very frustrated to not be able to help others like me who were looking for this particular answer and had quite a lot of trouble finding it.
- [edit: oh ps, thanks for the link! I actually found that last night, and skimmed that article! It looked really interesting, I was hoping to find some time to play around with the numbers as I see you already have.]
157.131.205.57 (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Contact me by email and I'll send you a spreadsheet of my guesses with regard to that 1928 cable.
- With regard to the other, I think that you are committing synthesis (WP:SYN). That goes like this 1. Adding inductance moves the conditions toward the Heaviside condition, 2. They added inductance, 3. Therefore they were trying to meet the Heaviside condition. Conclusion #3 may be correct, but unless you have a reliable source that says that, then you can't put it in an article. You look at it and it looks like they were trying to achieve the Heaviside condition. I look at it and to me, they were trying to optimize a filter. If they even knew about the Heaviside condition, they had rejected it as being of no useful consequence. Neither statement can be put in the article without a reliable source that says that explicitly. Constant314 (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, that sounds interesting, I will email you! I also wanted to ask you how you generated the velocity plot and where you got the data for loss tangent of gutta percha, but maybe that's best done over email. Now, I have to ask, how do I email you? Sorry I'm not really part of the Wikipedia community and don't know where to look for these things.
- Regarding the link I want, I have to protest that I am making no such error as synthesis in my core argument. I believe it is you who are making an error with regard to the subject matter of the article in question. I hope this doesn't come across as antagonistic, that's not how I mean it. Bear with me and I'll explain what I mean.
- Now, as far as the argument I made about the practical applicability of the Heaviside condition and loading telegraph cable, I admit I absolutely did say that it seemed like the practical addition of inductance might have been guided by the Heaviside condition. I agree that this isn't supported right now (and may be dead wrong), and can't be included in an article without references. This may have been an incorrect inference. We agree on this.
- But let's please set aside the question of actual, designed, loaded cables and practical electrical engineering practice. We're required to set these topics aside to decide the question, because these things are not germane to the subject matter of the article. I will just excerpt the introduction of the article to remind us what we're talking about:
- Telegrapher's equations
- The telegrapher's equations (or just telegraph equations) are a pair of coupled, linear partial differential equations ... The equations come from Oliver Heaviside who developed the transmission line model ... The theory applies to transmission lines of all frequencies including direct current and high-frequency. Originally developed to describe telegraph wires, the theory can ...
- Emphasis added. Now obviously I'm being selective here, but I'm trying to make a point. The point is that this is an article about a theoretical model, and I submit that what we are arguing about is whether one of the main mathematical results of the model should be mentioned or not.
- Can we agree that this page is a page about a theory? Not about electrical engineering design practices? Or do you disagree with that? If you disagree, then I guess this argument won't go anywhere, and no hard feelings, I guess people have different perspectives.
- But if I have convinced you that the page in question simply isn't a page about loading of telegraph cables, or design practice, or what real transmission lines do, and is in fact a page about a particular mathematical model called the Telegrapher's equations, then again I say there should be a link to the Heaviside condition. -InductorMan 157.131.205.57 (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi. I only have time for quick answers right now. I will write more, probably later today. To email, use the blue link on the left that says "Email this user". For information on gutta-percha see [[2]], table 1, specimen #3 in the power factor columns. Note, since G/ωC << R/ωL in the frequency range of interest, exact values of G are important. Constant314 (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that we have hit an impasse here. If you want to add the Heaviside condition to the article, you should probably make the case on the article's talk page. Maybe some other editors will agree with you. If you want to talk about the 1928 cable, I would be happy to continue that discussion. Constant314 (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks again for the links, and I agree: we are at an impasse on the article link question. I do think I'll have more questions about the 1928 cable and cables in general, but first I'll need to digest what you've given me so far and get the email correspondence going. Thanks you for the helpful and courteous discussion. 157.131.205.57 (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I sent you the spreadsheet. Let's see if the attachment gets through. I meant to point you to this essay: WP:COATRACK. It is not an official guideline, bit a lot of us use it as such.
- With regard to courtesy, I believe most editors are courteous, but some of them forget that written words often come out more forcefully than the same words spoken face to face in a friendly voice.
- Welcome to Wikipedia! Constant314 (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks again for the links, and I agree: we are at an impasse on the article link question. I do think I'll have more questions about the 1928 cable and cables in general, but first I'll need to digest what you've given me so far and get the email correspondence going. Thanks you for the helpful and courteous discussion. 157.131.205.57 (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that we have hit an impasse here. If you want to add the Heaviside condition to the article, you should probably make the case on the article's talk page. Maybe some other editors will agree with you. If you want to talk about the 1928 cable, I would be happy to continue that discussion. Constant314 (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi. I only have time for quick answers right now. I will write more, probably later today. To email, use the blue link on the left that says "Email this user". For information on gutta-percha see [[2]], table 1, specimen #3 in the power factor columns. Note, since G/ωC << R/ωL in the frequency range of interest, exact values of G are important. Constant314 (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Recent potential refspam issue
[edit]Hi, Constant314. Regarding this,[a] I think you had it right the first time, and I didn't, and I am starting to come around. Look at |last= values in the cite web before your three reverts, and compare to these two by a different account. Circumstantial, but compelling; I think an SPI is in order, but it's late in my TZ; can you do the honors? Otherwise I will tomorrow. Apologies; I suspect my argumentation at the other page, though GF, may have been misplaced. Mathglot (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know what an SPI is. I'm still learning.
- Would you mind telling me what tool you use to find the occurrences of Deepbeez. Constant314 (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- See WP:SPI. (A lot of the time when you see an abbreviation you don't know, just stick it in a wikilink with 'WP:' in front of it, and a lot of the time the link will go straight to the answer.)
- What tool: I used the search bar that is top right on every page of Wikipedia with the insource modifier. (In the skin I use; the search bar may be in a different position for you depending what skin you use; and has a magnifying glass icon in it.) The search syntax can get squirrely for complex search queries, but this one is pretty simple:
insource:Deepbeez. That's all there is to it. Mathglot (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Notes (refspam issue)
[edit]- ^ When you click that link, you might not recognize the pagename; since we commented there, they have changed their username.
Re: Username
[edit]Thank you for your feedback and for accepting my explanation. As suggested, I have changed my user ID to prevent any future misunderstanding. I appreciate the guidance. CustomsFan123 (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
UPS article - copyright vio - past due?
[edit]Hello!
I was looking at the Uninterruptible power supply article and I noticed there was a copyright investigation for some content. It said to go to copyright problems.
I went to the link Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Uninterruptible power supply and it is no longer there: "This topic could not be found. It might have been deleted, moved or renamed." I also cannot find the record in archives.
It is long past the 28th of January.
Where do we go on this?
Have a great day.
Urbanracer34 (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- What is your question? Copyrighted material was used without permission and it was removed. Constant314 (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Is it safe to remove the notice on the top of the article? You placed it there. Urbanracer34 (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes. Constant314 (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- It is done. Urbanracer34 (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes. Constant314 (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Is it safe to remove the notice on the top of the article? You placed it there. Urbanracer34 (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
hey constant
[edit]what twinkle template is this? (see your topic) (if it even is one) i tried finding it but twinkle is kind of a pain in the butt to navigate.
thanks! 203N7HN6 (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- @203N7HN6: Not the guy you're asking but its Template:Uw-editsummary, under single issue notices. Its easier to navigate twinkle notices by using the search bar sometimes. Also as an aside, your comment here got flagged by ORES/Huggle (hence why I'm replying) because of your use of the word "butt" :P Dark-World25 (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- right i didnt see the search bar actually... Thanks tho :) 203N7HN6 (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
hey constant
[edit]Would a user blanking/removing their warnings (warnings such as disruptive editing..vandalism...unconstructive editing..) be against any wikipedia rule? ive seen a bunch of people remove their warnings lately and i just wanted to know if its against anything. alright thakns bye :) 203N7HN6 (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- They can do anything that they want with their talk page except for a few very egregious things such as copyright violations. But don't worry, the warning is still there as part of their history. Only an admin can truly purge the warning. Note, that the fact that they remove the warning would tell a reviewing admin that they in fact had seen the warning. It actually makes it more likely that an admin will take action. Talk pages do get cluttered and so cleanup is reasonable, after the issue is settled. The best way to handle it is to setup automatic archiving after one year or so.Constant314 (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- ah alright thanks! 203N7HN6 (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
WikiLoop DoubleCheck v5 — Major update
[edit]Hi! You are receiving this message because you are a top contributor on the WikiLoop DoubleCheck leaderboard. Thank you for your reviews!
We are excited to announce WikiLoop DoubleCheck v5 — a complete ground-up rewrite with direct revert, Twinkle-style patrol features, real-time ML scoring, and three ways to review (web app, userscript, Chrome extension).
Read the full announcement: WikiLoop DoubleCheck v5 newsletter
Thank you for supporting the project! — xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 04:55, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
"Printed circuit board" and "Conformal coating" Condition
[edit]Hello. Currently, a significant portion of the references on the "Printed circuit board" page date back to before 2020, while on the "Conformal coating" page, the majority of the references originate from www.electrolube.com and conformalcoating.co.uk. Consequently, the content on both of these pages lacks sufficient depth and currency for modern readers. What are your thoughts? LakoYee (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
- The article does need more and better references. Thanks you for your efforts. However, the references that you prosed are for commercial websites. They are not always reliable and objective, hence, i reject them. It is true that there are other examples of exactly that type, but, prior bad practice is not a justification of new bad practice.
- My rule of thumb is if you examine the reference and see products or services for sale, then it is spam.
- Some manufactures have white papers about applications. It may feature their product, but as long as you can open the page without seeing advertising, then it passes the SPAM test.
- Note, anything that is a blog is usually not considered reliable.
- The best place to look for sources would be trade journals that have an independent editorial board. Constant314 (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- In fact, the vast majority of industry secrets or technical specifications are likely to appear on commercial websites, since these sites focus on practical applications and do not publish submitted articles. Some manufacturers only share industry insights on their own commercial websites; as long as they aren’t aggressively promoting specific products or services in these articles, they should be helpful to readers. What do you think? LakoYee (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- If that is the only place that they appear then they probably don't belong in an encylopedia. Constant314 (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, perhaps they should be more professional and include more references to demonstrate their expertise in this field. In any case, thank you for your selfless contribution. LakoYee (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- If that is the only place that they appear then they probably don't belong in an encylopedia. Constant314 (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- In fact, the vast majority of industry secrets or technical specifications are likely to appear on commercial websites, since these sites focus on practical applications and do not publish submitted articles. Some manufacturers only share industry insights on their own commercial websites; as long as they aren’t aggressively promoting specific products or services in these articles, they should be helpful to readers. What do you think? LakoYee (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
You may be eligible to vote in the U4C election
[edit]I am contacting you because you previously voted in elections related to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). You may be eligible to vote in the current U4C election, which is open now and closes on 2 June 2026. You can find out more about the candidates and the election on the election page on Meta, and from there you can access the vote itself. Your participation in these elections is important to the governance of Wikimedia communities, and your time spent learning about the candidates and voting is appreciated.
-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk)
Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
[edit]
|
Happy First Edit Day, Constant314, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | sandbox) 03:46, 21 May 2026 (UTC) |
- Thank you Constant314 (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
[edit] | Happy First Edit Day! Hi Constant314! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC) |  |
CS1 error on Inductance
[edit]
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Inductance, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Help with Sanmina requests
[edit]Hi Constant314, I saw that you'd posted a few times on the WikiProject Electronics Talk page, so might be an active member of that project and I wanted to reach out to ask for help. I'm looking for an editor willing to review some edit requests for a company Wikipedia article that is relevant to WikiProject Electronics: Sanmina Corporation. I'm a Sanmina employee here on Wikipedia on behalf of the company, making some requests to fix the article up. For instance, it's currently very poorly sourced, so I've started making some requests to add better sourcing and update outdated details. Is there any possibility you could look at the first request I've posted with some updates for the infobox? If you're not able to review, but you have any suggestions on where else I could ask or other steps I could take, I'd really appreciate that. Thanks! DarrenPress Sanmina (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Greetings, I will help you if I can. I think it would be best to close out the other requests as Not Done, and then make new requests, one item at a time. When you make changes on the talk page, it will show up in my watch list. No need to ping me, but you can if you want to do so. Constant314 (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- This is very helpful, Constant314! I've marked the infobox request as not done and started posting the individual items as new separate requests. I didn't post all of them as I wanted to check that's what you had in mind: are those individual item requests what you were suggesting?
- For now, I've not touched the History first request, since that one may honestly be more confusing if I tried to break it down further. I'll keep thinking about it and meantime if you do get to look at it, let me know if it works as one request. Thanks! DarrenPress Sanmina (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Yes. Individual requests. No more than four open at a time please. Constant314 (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Hi again, Constant314! In case you hadn't spotted my reply on the Sanmina Talk page, I wanted to let you know that I added the missing citations to the History request. Are you still able to review that request? I've also closed the Products and Services lists requests for now, to hopefully save everyone's time and energy. Thanks! DarrenPress Sanmina (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- Yes. Individual requests. No more than four open at a time please. Constant314 (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)