User talk:Constant314

Magnetic current (flowing magnetic mono-poles), M, creates an electric field, E, in accordance with the left-hand rule.

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.

What Wikipedia is not

Just been looking over your recent work in attenuator (electronics). This is good stuff, but I have a couple of comments. Firstly, most of the component calculation information is probably better off in the individual articles for specific attenuator circuits. Indeed, there seems to be some duplication. You could put a summary in the attenuator article and use the {{main}} template to link to the details. Secondly, I would like to draw your attention to the WP:NOTTEXTBOOK policy. Wikipedia is not meant to be a textbook teaching the subject and lengthy formula derivations are getting close to being in breach of this. You might want to consider whether some of your material is more suitable for the sister project Wikibooks. Wikibooks can be linked into a Wikipedia article with the {{Wikibooks}} template. SpinningSpark 12:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

thank you for your comments. I will consider them carefully, but maybe not until tomorrow. Merry Christmas and thanks for the help and advice in the past.Constant314 (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy holidays. I have removed the examples and derivations. The article should be much less like a text book now. As for where to put the information, I have pondered this and come up with a dilemma. There is a lot of overlap between T-pad and pi-pad. It is not a matter of effort; it is just a question of how to organize the information. Should it be in two or three places or should it be in one place with links to it in other articles? The problem with having it in two articles is that improvements, error correction, additions may be made in one article and not the other. So, I'd rather just put it in one place and attenuator looked like a good place since it treats T-pads and pi-pads equally. I got advice on this from Dicklyon who suggested " Don't make a new article that overlaps the other two; it's better to merge all into one of the existing ones, move it to Impedance matching pad or something like that, then convert the others to redirects. " I thought attenuator would be a good candidate for something like Impedance matching pad . As always I appreciate your comments.Constant314 (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Dicklyons solution is workable, but personally, I like to see the details of specific circuits in their own articles. The general article is less hard going for the reader that way. Another possible approach is to write the common material in the template namespace and then transclude it into both articles. This would solve your problem of maintainability since any change will automatically be reflected in both articles. If you go down this path, make sure the first line of the template is a heading as this will make for easy editing of the section. SpinningSpark 23:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. Can you point me to an example?Constant314 (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If you take a look at Talk:Aboriginal Memorial you will see that there is a GA review going on. The review can be seen on the talk page, but is actually on a different page, Talk:Aboriginal Memorial/GA1. If you look at the talk page in edit mode you will see that the review page is transcluded on to it by writing the page between double curly braces like so {{Talk:Aboriginal Memorial/GA1}}. Note that the review can be edited as if it were a section of the talk page because it begins with a heading. In the article space, pages which are to be transcluded in are placed in the "template" namespace. In those cases the namespace "template" can be omitted as "template will be assumed if nothing is specified, see for instance Heartbreak Hotel which has a list of {{Elvis Presley singles}} at the bottom of the article which also appears in many other articles. SpinningSpark 23:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand that. Is the page to be transcluded just an ordinary page? Constant314 (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, any page can be transcluded on to any other page, but it is the convention to put the page to be transcluded in the template namespace rather than the main namespace because the latter is reserved only for self-contained articles, not fragments. SpinningSpark 16:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Electrical engineering

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Electrical engineering! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of all electrical engineering related articles.

We are just starting, so there are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; feel free to participate as much or as little as you like:

• Tag existing articles on their talk page with the {{WikiProject Electrical engineering}} template.
• Starting missing articles in the electrical engineering area.

You can use Outline of electrical engineering or Index of electrical engineering articles as a starting point.

• If you want to know how good our articles are? Have a look at our assessment department.
• If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any fellow member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you.

Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

SchreyP ^(messages) 08:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Numbering equations

I have a question about numbering equations. This is normally done in text books so that you can easily refer to a particular equation, yet it does not seem to be the style for Wikipedia pages to have equations numbered. So my questions are: 1. Is numbering of equations undesirable? 2. Is there a preferred way to number equations? 3. Is there an article that uses numbered equations that illustrates the practice? Thanks in advance to anyone who answers my questions.Constant314 (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

An interesting question, which I thought would be easy to answer. First, I looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics; drawing blank there, I went to WP:WikiProject Mathematics and picked a few featured articles and good articles from the list on their page, to try to find examples of equation numbering. No luck. I will leave the "helpme" in case some one else can answer; also, I will post a note on the WikiProject's talk page. JohnCD (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know of an article that uses numbered equations, but the templates {{EquationNote}} and {{EquationRef}} can be used for that purpose. You may want to ask at WT:WikiProject Mathematics on whether equations should be numbered - personally I'd try to avoid numbered equations if at all possible. Huon (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There's also {{NumBlk}} which lets you layout a line containing a formula and number. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

To see this all in action, take a look at Poisson summation formula.--LutzL (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Equation numbering is described in Help:Formula#Equation numbering. --Mark viking (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that—with the new MathJax—anyhting appearing outside the math tags will destroy the new formula centering feature. That means that (unless the numbering is done in the math itself) numbered equations will remain left justified with the number on the far right, whereas unnumbered equations will get centered. See indeed Poisson summation formula. Ugly. - DVdm (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Indentation, numbering or equation bullets: In many cases, an equation is merely indented by a lead colon ":" (or two "::"), while numbered equations would imply an expectation of mentioning the equation numbers in other text. Unfortunately, the math-tag text is often heavy, dark, bolded text and looks "unprofesssional" for extra numbering/wording, such as "where x is the angle of incidence" or similar. For numbering, I would recommend simply placing an indented plain-text number ":1. " in front of the math-tag for equations which will be mentioned in the text. Lists of equations should generally use asterisk bullets (":*") to allow some to wrap as two math-tags on two lines. However, beware how the math pages are the most difficult to update, often reverted with bickering or complaints by other editors, and hence, the math pages are some of the most backward, cryptic, or awkward of all WP articles, with excessive technical structure and too little explanation of the related concepts for general readers. Those pages also tend to "dog-pile" tangent topics as crammed into over-large pages with excessive obtuse abstract wording, rather than move the related tangent topics into smaller concise subpages as often done with mainstream topics. If you are a teacher or have a degree in mathematics, as I do, then I suggest working on math pages at Simple English Wikipedia, to clarify concepts for general users, and then if someone complains why the WP math pages are so convoluted, unkempt or confusing, then direct them to read about a clarified topic at Simple WP instead. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers. If anyone has more comments please continue to post them.Constant314 (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Magnetic vector potential

I'm not familiar with this notion, but perhaps the following reference will help. (I see what you mean about the cost of these books! But we're in luck . . ..) Many years ago I bought a book called "The J & P Transformer Book" by Martin Heathcote, first published in 1925 and now in its 13th or so edition. This book belonged to and stayed with the company where I worked, but marvel of marvels it's gone into the public domain, all 950+ pages of it, and I was able to download all of the 12th edition (if you google "J & P Transformer Book" you'll find this as the second result):

ftp://ftp2.epman.org/epman/epman/portal/yde/The_J_P_Transformer_Book_12E.pdf

In the first chapter you'll see quite-complicated, thorough phasor diagrams (these have flux and voltage and currents etc all on the same diagram). The pdf version is a bit marred by poor resolution of these drawings (most seem adequate), but check out Appendix 7 "The use of finite element analysis in the calculation of leakage flux and dielectric stress distributions" where you'll find some really fancy math and physics . . . div and curl and all that good stuff. Ditto for some of the other Appendices.

Is this the sort of thing you're after? I hope this helps . . . Bill Wvbailey (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Constant314. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Constant314 (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Your works?

Your wrong. Just a hint, there's no such thing as dielectic. You may mean to say dialect, its primative and reworked of others hard work. Please remove your applied mechanic otherwise I will have you prosecuted. I know what you intend to do and it's After the death of Christ not DC and information collected has been passed to the authorities that links the whole organization of the revoltation of the time. Zap! Good luck Ayresnick93 (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Signature test

My sig Constant314 (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Constant314! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, LaTeX funny, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review

Wikipedia mini globe handheld

Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

About Steinmetz’s Equation I

Why did you delete my contribution about p(t)=v(t)*i(t) without any explanatios? --Saksoy14 (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for contacting me. The content that you added regarding Poynting vector to Steinmetz's equation was reverted because it was only vaguely related to Steinmetz's equation which is a non-linear, empirical equation for estimating power loss in certain magnetic materials. While, when a transformer is in use, there must be a PV, in practice it is intractable to compute. Similarly, V x I is not useful because V x I computes the total power whereas Steinmetz's equation tells you the portion of the power going into magnetic loss. Finally, the fact that Balci et al state that they precisely derive in 2021 a result well known for over a century isn’t interesting.

A couple of points about Wikipedia etiquette:

• I did leave an explanation. It might have been terse. Saying that I left you no explanation is like saying that I am rude. Some editors will take offense at that. On the other hand, there is no harm in asking for further explanation.
• When you add a new section to a talk page, it should always go at the bottom. If you use the “new section” tab at the top of the page, it will automatically place the new section at the bottom.

Feel free to contact me if you have questions. Constant314 (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

About Steinmetz’s Equation II

As you said, Steinmetz’s Equation is an empirical one. In this sense, for the first time in literature, its well-known and widely-used version in time domain (instantaneous power equation p(t)=v(t).i(t) for harmonic or non-harmonic sources) is theoretically extracted by us (for the first time in literature). Therefore, it is directly related to Steinmetz’s Equation and power theory. In fact, our contribution makes a good theoretical base (relying on Maxwell’s equation) for Steinmetz’s Equation. In this sense, it cannot be simply neglected. It must be mentioned. Saksoy14 (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You need to review Wikipedia's policies on self-promotion. See WP:COI.

If you wish to continue this conversation, please do so on Talk:Steinmetz's equation.

Regarding the page move (PCB)

I see, and sorry I had no idea regarding it. the addition of "PCB" to the title is justified IMO. But ok, I see it was revered. Thanks for pointing out. SunnyG81 (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. We expect new editors to make mistakes. Before you do anything big to a page, it is good to talk about it. Moving (renaming) a page is a big deal. Constant314 (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, and would have to disagree. My page moves were justified and made in good faith for the best interest of our readers. But OK, I can definitely accept a page move may have more serious implications, i.e double redirects, etc that may require alot of manual work. accepted. However, it seems you are reverting my other changes as well. And for absolutely no reason. The article I recited is from a very reputable source, it has a references section reciting industry leaders. The author has been a lecturer in several courses in the university and has been established hands-on experience since 2004. He is also a recognized expert on circuitnet. I would challenge you to find even a single error in the article. even one. And lastly, look at my content. And the comparing with existing paragraph. Do you really think the previous content is better? How many electronic circuits have you designed to disclaim my content with such ease? The content is accurate as well as the sources, and the intention is honest. I'm an established myself in the field of electronics and people like me help make wikipedia better. I had seen and fixed many times before incorrect content on WP, I focus on good content, and don't have my hand easy on the button reverting other people contents. CF WP:ROWN, and try to be more open to other people, wikipedia makes small increments on improvement due to people like us. If the content is good, please be open to other's expertise and remember wikipedia belongs to all of us and all (or at least most) of us have good will and good intentions. Best wishes to you. SunnyG81 (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@SunnyG81:Hi, regarding the moves, you are welcome to propose that on the talk page of the relevant articles. You may even convince me. If you do eventually move a page, take a look at Wikipedia:Moving a page. There is a lot of cleanup work, that as mover, you are expected to do. That is one reason that long duration pages are not often moved. Also, when you move a page, all the hyperlinks become hyperlinks to redirects. The community frowns upon that and has spent a lot of effort converting hyperlinks to redirects into direct hyperlinks. When you move a page you negate a lot of work by many editors. It is not something to do without discussion and consensus. Also, when you move an article, the new name needs to comply with Wikipedia:Article titles. If you do not get this right, somebody else will have to move it again.

You did make some good changes and I do not doubt your good intentions, however when there were too many disputes to address individually, it is better to start over from a known good version. If you would like to reinsert those edits, it is better to do them a few at a time and let other editors have a chance to respond to them. We do encourage editors to edit boldly, but that also means we encourage editors to revert boldly. Don't take it as an affront, take it as an invitation for discussion. Sometimes, it takes a lot of discussion. That is part of the process. Let's discuss specific changes on the talk pages of the specific articles.

Regarding using a blog as a reference, we prefer reliable secondary sources. Blogs are primary sources. We don't like experts, because sometimes experts lie and sometimes they inflate their credentials. Wikipedia was burned badly sometime ago by over-reliance on experts. It does happen, but poor practice in one article doesn't justify poor practice in other articles (WP:Other). If the content you added is accurate, you should be able to find good secondary or tertiary references. There are many reliable trade journals that would be potential sources. For example, in the article on Vias, you added "The via is the number one priority of the PCB manufacturer". That is clearly one person's opinion. There are still a huge number of single sided PCBs being manufactured that don't have any vias. The expert that you quoted probably knows that, but did not have the time or space to properly qualify his remarks. That is one of the problem with blogs, course notes and other user generated content (WP:UGC). But that is something to discuss on the talk page of that article.

Wikipedia is a community and culture with many written and unwritten rules. It can be frustrating. I get frustrated. Some days I get so frustrated that I decide to leave and never come back. Let me leave you with these thoughts:

1. Please don't move any page without a lot of discussion and consensus. On a page with few active watchers, it can take a long time to get the discussion going. There is no hurry.

2. When you are reverted, please don't be offended, just open a discussion.

Constant314 (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Once again agree with you on the page moves. And since I'm very busy I cannot undertake such responsibility so I have to waive that. I do think this keeps the content stuck / non-organized, I just recall seeing duplicate pages and non-useful content at the wrong place. I believe I have done good work when moving, but did not properly cleaned up so this is perfectly understandable.

Regarding "The via is the number one priority of the PCB manufacturer", I truely belive this so this why I added this. The argument for 1 layer board is irrelevant as 1L is very easy to make, the problem starts with complex multilayer boards. For example, we have a problem now with a board that is almot 90day stuck at the manufacturer!! it is only 8 layer board, and the manufacturer, italian and really good one, has done this PCB before. He's primary complaint: the vias, too many vias from differnt layers require multiple lamination stages, multiple drilling and multiple plating stages! each lamination and drill has it's tolerances. and sometimes you can't plate if one side of the via is plugged up (see for example the microvia aspect ratio, this is a well known fact that the laser drill is not the issue, the plating becomes difficult). In short, while we can't agree on everything at least I can tell that I 100% back this statement. A PCB without vias would not require tight registration tolerances, would not require multiple laminations nor multiple plating. The via is also the reason every complex boards needs to pay upfront 'tooling', the manufacturer needs to learn and adapt the gerbers and drills.

Unfortunately, I can't easily find second references for this, because our world is not always built on sharing information. But its something I learned over the years as a user.

And, I would not call a 6000-word article a blog post or user content. This article is based on nationally accepted IPC standards and has a reference section. I believe these expert article eventually enhance wikipedia. I would refrain from making edits from wikipedia when I see users reverting my posts like this, like 5-6 reverts a day. While keeping nonsense and inaccurate stuff, or even non explanatory terms such as the ones you have now on your page. not for me.

SunnyG81 (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I wish I could reorganize Wikipedia. Or better yet, organize it in the first place. But Wikipedia has become middle aged and resistant to change. It is what is.

The discussion about the PCB article should be on its talk page so that other editors can join in.

The problem with putting in stuff that we truly believe is sometimes it is wrong. The discipline of finding a reliable source helps avoiding those errors. It is better to leave something out for lack of a reliable source can to put in something erroneous.

As for what is on my page, that is work in progress and not part of Wikipedia.

Constant314 (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Constant314:

I can understand your concern. And appreciate your voluntary work towards wikipedia. I can confirm the source is accurate, and based on up to date technologies and accepted IPC standards. I think a source should be judged on it own, and I presume you might not be deeply technical in this art in order to judge a source based on it's content. I also think this is part of the problem, seemingly almost automatic revertion based on a misunderstanding of factual and up to date data. But ok, let's leave this and approach a resolution.

BTW I must say, blog posts by industry leaders are considered one of todays best sources of information. This is because in the world of PCBs the IPC standards are not freely published, each document costs hundred of dollars and there are numerous standards you need to be aware of. I also agree that not every blog post is legit however I suggest to judge based on content and not based on the magazzine / university publication etc. For me, I cringe when I read sentences on the PCB page like "These holes are called micro vias and can have diameters as small as 10 micrometers" and "When vias with a diameter smaller than 76.2 micrometers are required, drilling with mechanical bits is impossible" - as one living in the PCB world for almost 20 years I understand this is falsified junk. the smallest accepted mechanical drill is 150um and not 76um. and not one PCB company on earth will make a 10um laser drill. But still, it's on a magazzine. Sometimes free, sometimes the content payed to be on a maggazzine IMO. This is why I think expert advise is important and that content should be judged based on content.

I'm going to revert the change in 'printed circuit board' and move the discussion to the talk page (the page moves will not be reverted). And let other people scrutinize the article based on their knowledge as well.

regarding Via (electronics), I will not revert but will better write why PCB via is such of profound importance in PCB design, hopefully this will offset something that at a first glance may look as an opinion into more factual, evidence-based data.

hope this could lead to an agreement in good faith and mutual understanding.

Have a nice weekend and once again appreciate your endeavor SunnyG81 (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Re on "Please also check our electronic design services page". I hope you can find it reasonable that within a 6000-word article, a 3-word would really not constitute as a promotion. The entire article is completely done for the community with nothing but good intentions. best wishes SunnyG81 (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I prefer to keep this conversation on Talk:Printed circuit board.Constant314 (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Sir, I just want to deeply apologize for any misconduct I may have expressed during my first comment. I don't know about the future if I remain a wikipedian, alter the account name or start over. More important than PCBs are good manners. Anyway, best wishes and thank you for keeping at least some of my text it makes me feel at least proud of a small acheivement. SunnyG81 (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like you had a rough entry into Wikipedia. You jumped in before anybody got around to greeting you and helping you get oriented. I apologize for all of Wikipedia for that. I would personally prefer that you stick around. Before you do anything drastic like closing your account or opening a new one (really, don't do that), you need more help than I can give. We understand that new editors make mistakes and yours are well intentioned. You need help from an experienced administrator. See Template:Admin help. Open a new section on your talk page. Give an appropriate title line "Need editor needs help", Explain your situation. It is not clear to me but it looks like you committed conflict of interest violations. Just be up front and explain that you want to fix it. Then at the beginning of the section insert {{Admin help}}. You should be contacted by an administrator. Do this sooner instead of later. Constant314 (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Let me leave you with this thought. Even if everything you wrote gets reverted or revised, you still have made a contribution. You induced someone else to look at that article and make a judgment about the content. You provoked a discussion about reliable sources that someone else will read and perhaps understand. Constant314 (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Constant314, thank you very much, I highly appreciate your help. Yes, last couple of days were really rough, I learned the hard way and probably was naive - but understand much better now the rules and guidelines of wikipedia. I am actually somewhat expecting to get punished and I would be ok with that, perhaps even feel better. Actually, I was contemplating if to open the account by my real name few months back and saw a warning about potential risks so I decided not to do so (however, Sunny or sun in hebrew is shemesh, just anactotal..). Now understanding that I'm a COI case and also self published I'm not so sure that I would qualify for inclusion as a wikipedia source.

Also, thank you for your tip and it helps me see things as if through different eyeglasses, you mentioned that I'm also promotional, but I did not got the chance to tell you that search engines actually require internal linking within a website. Before I clearly inserted the link from my home page to the via page, the via page did not even get indexed, i.e search engines did not want to waste resources on storing information about it on thier servers. The same goes the other way (via->home) and interestingly navigational links at the top/bottom of the page are actually ignored. There is a full theory behind this and perhaps off subject.

Also I wanted to say, another anacdotal, the sentence "The via is the number one priority of the PCB manufacturer" is actually not mine. About 15 years ago I needed to layout a board that was clearly above my capabilities back then, and I met by chance in an electronics show a very experienced engineer from ECI Telcom that was doing complex commincation PCBs all his carrer, and asked him if he could give me paid private lessons to learn PCB design. Furtunately for me, they agreed (he and ECI) and I was invited to thier offices to learn. I think it was 20hours or so but they only charged me for 10! It still resonate to me by this day, one of the first things he told me is this exact sentence. Agreeably, quite subtle very hard to defend opinion sentence, I can clearly understand why this could draw fire and perhaps better omitted. Nevertheless, I learned over the years just how remarkably correct this sentence has proved on multiple occasions.

Lastly, I'd like to point out that I, as a self-published source, still sign on my web page with my real name. This is why I absolutely HAVE to make sure I made any possible effort to maintain correct information. Can it be 100% verified just by looking at my cited sources? maybe 90% could, at best, but would require detective work. On the other hand, online magazines who profit by showing ads, many times accept articles for free and the rest of the cases - for a small fee. This provided that you prepared for them the article text/pics and have some sort of story going on. They just edit it into their webpage. So the question of verifiability and true reliable source is quite deep I believe and think current guidelines miss out and some exercise of personal judgment by the community is appropriate.

Anyway, thank you for your patience and understanding in the situation and also for reaching out to help. Contacting an admin is a great tip, I will need to think about it, I need to resolve the COI issue as you mentioned and see if I can make less promotional the page (the idea of reopening an account, was for specifying the real name, but if it can be prevented, all the better). best wishes! SunnyG81 (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. If you want to stay on Wikipedia, it is important to get ahead of your error. Typically, we give editors three warnings, but editors using Wikipedia for promotional purposes are often blocked with fewer warnings. If there are still any instances of references to your web-site, you may want to remove those as soon as possible. Since it is obvious to me that the problem won’t occur, I certainly won’t report you and I doubt that User talk:MrOllie will do so either. But there are editors who act as the Wikipedia police that do look for people to report. That is why I would urge you to get admin help now.

Regarding your commercial web-site, I did not see anything that I would object to. If you published that same information as an article in a respected trade journal, then it could be cited in Wikipedia by anyone other than you. But that would mean that at least the editorial staff of the journal looked at and if it is one of the better journals, they got it peer reviewed. A long time ago, I wrote an article for the now defunct PCB Magazine. The reviewer requested several changes before they published the article. The more eyes that look at, the better the product.

Regarding “The via is the number one priority of the PCB manufacturer”, that is an opinion. If IPC surveyed 1000 PCB manufacturers and 53% agreed that vias were their number one priority, then it would have some legitimate claim to being a fact. I think that if you asked a large number of manufacturers, then you would find other things as being a higher priority. I think probably before they worry about vias, the first thing they do is determine whether they can handle the job. Do the have the materials? Can they work with the requested materials? Will the overall dimensions fit within the current process? Will they have to buy something to handle this job? What is the thinnest trace and the smallest gap? I am sure that you can think of a number of things that they might check before they ever got around to looking at the vias. They might even ask, “will this customer pay me?”

And then “number one priority,” doesn’t really mean anything. It is too vague. Literally, it is the sort of thing that is written on promotional materials. To make it less vague, you might say something like “According to an IPC survey, manufactures expend more man-hours on checking via registration than on any other step.” Now, it says something objective and verifiable.

By the way, your web-site is considered copyrighted, even if you do not explicitly post a copyright notice. You cannot copy and paste from a copyrighted source without explicit permission. There is a mechanism for that, but, at this point, you could be anybody, and your claim to have the rights isn’t sufficient for Wikipedia. We do not want to be in court defending against copyright infringement, so we are ultra-skeptical.

Constant314 (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Constant, thank you for the detailed response. Agreed, I'll do it right away and contact admin just to clear things up and perhaps receive a penalty if appropriate.

Re promotional purposes, I'm not entirely sure I understood. I have no more sources to my website from wikipedia pages. I had two and both were reverted. I just said that my via page on my website has an internal reference to the main page. But that's entirely on my webpage.

It's great to know about your publication on PCB magazine, and it's great to see they actually reviewed it and even came back with remarks! I think that's rather unusual though, perhaps edn still does it. However I can say that certainly some of these magazines are not like that anymore, again I think that a case by case judgment has to be made. Furthermore, to publish in a magazine means all the traffic goes to the magazine, there, of course, some benefits like establishing authority and possibly getting a reference from the magazine. It is definitely something that I would want to do in the future however but time is also a resource and my via article is still missing critical information that i'd like to add, like a section on microvias, via filling, plugging, and tenting, and possibly adding a FAQ section where readers can also get engaged and send some questions. In addition, I also need to keep my customers happy so it's difficult.

re “The via is the number one priority of the PCB manufacturer”. Agreed it is an opinion and it should be better rephrased. Also, agree that certainly there are other factors as you mentioned, some of them may even be a show stopper (like missing materials or non a paying customer), of course. But I'd call of these zero order issues that need to be addressed. For example, materials. Manufacturer can usually offer the stackup, you can optionally offer your stackup and reference the materials and thicknesses you want, while still being generic. For example, you could ask for a 2116 preperg without specifing the manufacturer. similarily you could ask the entire build will be TG170 or better, and this way you wont lose any manufacturer in the quotation stage. For some special radar boards where specific low loss cores were needed, we understood this is very limiting and could rule out good manufacturers, so my customer bought these materials himself and shipped to the selected manufacturer. Also, track/trace tolerance is really non issue today, you have a specific clearance you need to maintain per given copper thickness. The manufacturer has etch compensation table where he knows how much to compensate for a given thickness. And even if he did some mistake, he has an optical machine for inspecting the etched panels prior to lamination, if any error arise, he thows only a small portion of the build and not the entire lamination.

However, with vias this is not the case. Via has some probability to go off the center of the pad, and you have also lamination and other tolerances down the road. It directly affects the yield and not 100% predicatble. Furthermore, if you have a panel with multiple boards, depending if you allow X-out or not, one faulty board might throw an entire panel.

However, these are only the on-surface reasons. There are more. Vias are directly related to board cost, build time, and manufacturer's effort. If I specify a via-in-pad, the manufacturer needs about 8 additional stages in order to prepare that via. If for example I used an 8L PCB and have 1-4, 5-8 and 1-8 vias, the manufacturer needs to build it as 3 boards, with 3 laminations, 3 platings, 3 drillings. And to engineer a custom list of processes from start to finish. Sometimes you even get manufacturer throw in the towel, in the foldable radar PCB on my website, some excellent manufacturers chose not to quote. There are builds that can go really crazy. And the root cause is the via. How we specify them, the clearances we take, drill sizes, from which layer to which layer - it is exteremly important for the manufacturer to fully understand the gerbers before he can give you a quote and lead time.

But it even doesn't stop here, because the customer and the manufacturer are at a conflict. The customer wants a reliable board with vias surviving thermal cycles, the manufacturer want a reproducible board and sometimes will reduce via diameter (and strength) in favor of clearance. The customer wants good internal planes, the manufacturer wants a reproducible board with greater drill to copper. Surely the manufacturer wants to do a good job. But he is contrained by the build cost and this industry has a low margin.

So, perhaps I even have not phrased the original sentence well. "The via is god!!". That's better (kidding of course...). This is also why I wanted to have a via page and through this lens to explain about PCB design and just how it is important to understand the manufacturing process. Just FYI.

I wasn't thinking about copyright issues at all. For me it sounds reasonable that a one-sentence could be loaned from other website without issues. But I take it that it might not be so simple. Easily this could be resolved, however, by slightly rephrasing. Or by more formal consent mechnism by myself. And again I agree about this is an opinion sentence that could easily be rewritten as more factual. "number one priority" is just for emphasis though, as you understand English is not my mother tongue as many times it is difficult for me to explain whole concepts while keeping it simple. This is why I do like that not everything needs to be explained, certainly not for a beginner wanting to learn what is a via.

OK now I'll go and prepare the admin paragraph, keep you posted (in the case my account survives!).

best wishes SunnyG81 (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Your account will most likely survive, but you may be given a time out. Probably not even that. Good luck.

I think an article on PCBs for radar would be an interesting read. It would be the right sized chunk for EDN. Constant314 (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for you help. It is done by the way and now I'll wait.

Yes the rigid flex radar is very interesting. But by my customer's request, I can't disclose it on another website. The little that is written on my page is approved though.

SunnyG81 (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Photon particles and laser beam structure

This gif anim shows how builds up laser beam by photon particles and how stabilized the laser "crystal" by intrinsic electric forces. I would like to explain for you what you see and perhaps you can help to make it more understandable.

The photon is a particle, an energy quantum consist by four fundamental particles: two (mirror)graviton energy particles and two (mirror)electric charge energy particles. The graviton pair alone cause the gravitational phenomena, pushing gravity. Its a speedy, perpetuum mobile particle, travels in a DNA like trajectory. When this pair bind two (mirror) electric charge fundamental particles so the photon emerged.

The cross section of moving photon particle shows yin yang symbol. So this anim not a rotating yin yang symbol but contrary, the ancient yin yang symbolize the nature most importance ingredient, the photon.

The laser beam stabilized by this intrinsic electric forces because if we label the distance between adjacent photons with d in the crystalline grid, so distance between the same neighboring charges are always d, while the distance between opposite charges is always smaller than d.

The https://astrojan.eu5.org/phot3.gif picture shows how arise photon periodically changing properties, once electric and after a quarter of wavelength magnetic nature from the internal structure of a photon.

https://astrojan.eu5.org/images/phopani.gif

where the vertical line position of the four ingredient correspond to electric property and the square position shows the magnetic property of photon perpendicularly to former one.

I think no other model can explain how functionate the photon.

Perhaps not incidental that Corean wiki site incorporated the laser anim picture.

Please help me how I can make more understandable and clearer illustration of particle model of photon.

Astrojan (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This is fringe science WP:FRINGE. It is not suitable for inclusion in the Electromagnetic radiation article. Constant314 (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Roy M. Harrigan on magnetic levitation

Why do you insist on reestablishing this dead wiiilink that has been dead for over a decade?? Seriously, I realize we editors on this project are to AGF but sheesh your "editing" is coming across as blindly clueless if not malicious. 2601:645:102:45A0:4D75:F192:F56A:5FAD (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I prefer to discus this on the article talk page. Constant314 (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

You are the person reverting this edit so it makes sense to address you here about it. Again, regardless of other edits on this article why are you reverting the removal of this wikilink? What is your logic for that? 2601:645:102:45A0:4D75:F192:F56A:5FAD (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing the redlink. My revert was for the awkward language. Constant314 (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

So a blind revert? Nice. Good job, thumbs up. Clueless as suspected. Please edit better. Thank you. 67.164.63.226 (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello Constant314, Thank you for your feedback and sending me a welcoming message and guidelines of wikipedia. I definitely did not intent to spam anybody by sharing the links, I love electronics and this is my personnel website that I am currently designing, I still have a lot of work to do, but I am trying to come up with a centralized way to have all tools you need when you work on electronics. I understand the uniqueness of the links is not appropriate for wikipedia, so hopefully one day I will get something worthwhile :) In the meantime, I will continue to work on it, thanks for the guidance. Gratefully,

Papapuce (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)