Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electrical engineering/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineering. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Missing access points

Something for the future:

Outline of electrical engineering -- we currently have a list of topics. However, WP:OUTLINE is missing
Portal:Electrical engineering
Book:Electrical engineering

70.49.127.65 (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Finally!

I've been waiting for this to happen for a long time. Nczempin (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You can sign your name onto the list on the front page. Or add {{User WikiProject Electrical engineering}} to your user page. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Assessment table will not be updated for a while

Hi, the assessment table Electrical engineering articles by quality and importance will not be updated for a while due to toolserver replag. For background info see here. Regards, SchreyP ^(messages) 21:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Shortcut

How about WT:DOUBLE-E/WP:DOUBLE-E being shortcuts for this project? (talk page, main page) -- 70.24.251.208 (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

EE, Eengg, ele engg would be fine. do you think double is req? ShriRam ^{Talk to}_me 09:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:EE and WP:WPEE is already in use. I suppose we could ask that WPP to let us have "WP:EE" or "WP:WPEE" instead. That's why I suggested "Double-E". WP:ELECENG/WP:EENG sound good. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have rerouted the redirect of WP:ENGG to WikiProject Engineering, since Engg. is an abbreviation for Engineering, not just Electrical Engineering. So this could be confusing. But I have added WP:EEng, since EEng. seem to be also a common abbreviation for Electrical Engineering. Regards, SchreyP ^(messages) 12:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Banner template

Nice ones, especially Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electrical Engineering/banner, because electrical engineers know the importance of grounding. I've created a userbox. I hope its good. ShriRam ^{Talk to}_me 09:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

looks good. I see you reduced the complexity of the banner. You (since an IP cannot create things) need to create the assessment categories (look at the banner page for a list of categories to create). I've done some initial tagging for a few high prominence pages. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC) (my IP has rotated)

I'll have a look. But the process might go slow due to my exams! ShriRam ^{Talk to}_me 18:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Whenever you have time, or someone else joins who has an account. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the categories listed in the fix-me autonotices on the banner page, we also need the two parent categories Category:WikiProject Electrical Engineering articles by importance‎ and Category:WikiProject Electrical Engineering articles by quality, which categorize directly into Category:WikiProject Electrical Engineering. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

How about a shortcut to the banner? WP:WPEENG -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi 70.24.251.208 (or which other IP you are now using), Is it ok to delete the banner pages? Since we have now the {{WikiProject Electrical engineering}} template, it is unlikely that it will be used in the future. Kind Regards, SchreyP ^(messages) 16:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Main article needs urgent work - Rated Start-class, Top-importance

The article Computer engineering which was assigned Top-importance by this WikiProject is rated as a Start-class article. What needs to be done to upgrade it? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

no load transformer

sir i have 3-phase tranformer with a input supply 11kv n it's capacity 1600 kva. if it's on no load so what's it's input transformer current.????

plz give me reply me as early as possible n with also formula bcz it's also apply for calculation. send me it's on my mail id urvish2693@yahoo.in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.201.222.6 (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Synchronous motor

This article is rated "high priority" by your project, but is currently the subject of an editing dispute because it is largely unsourced. The editor arguing for removing the content is technically in the right since this is a technical article and needs to be verifiable, but it would be a shame if good content was removed on that basis. I have tracked down some sources on Google Books preview which may be of use, but this isn't my area, and I would not feel comfortable adding references to an article where I am not familiar with the subject matter. If someone could spend an hour or two adding some sources to diffuse the situation it would be appreciated. Betty Logan (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Currently editing it. ShriRam ^{Talk to}_me 07:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope now there are enough number of references to support the contents. If you find anything odd, do leave a note on the article's talk page or here. We will see what we can do. Thanks for the note. ShriRam ^{Talk to}_me 07:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Electronics terminology

Category:Electronics terminology has been nominated for deletion by merger into Category:Electronics -- 70.24.246.233 (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Integrated circuit inventor

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Patents as source for invention claims about whether patents are suitable reliable sources to support claims that a particular person invented the way to make integrated circuits -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

IEEE Trans Antenn & Prop coverimage.gif

file:IEEE Trans Antenn & Prop coverimage.gif has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Metadyne

I have taken the liberty of adding Metadyne to your project, since other electic motors seem to be included. I have rated it low importance, since it is old technology, and C-class, based on quite a lot of content and all carefully referenced. Feel free to re-assess if necessary. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox engineer

{{Infobox engineer}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

WaveletPackets

The equations given for the number wavelet sets of coefficients does not look right. "For n levels of decomposition the WPD produces 2^n different sets of coefficients (or nodes) as opposed to (3n + 1) sets for the DWT. However, due to the downsampling process the overall number of coefficients is still the same and there is no redundancy."

2^n looks smaller than what it should be. also 3n+1 doens't work for DWT for 1D signal with 2levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.149.156 (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

EarlyTeslaCoil.PNG

image:EarlyTeslaCoil.PNG has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

AC/DC (electricity)

AC/DC (electricity) has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:AC/DC (electricity) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: The page "AC/DC (electricity)" has been moved to AC/DC receiver design. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Waveguide filter

The article waveguide filter has been nominated for FA. Your comments and opinion on whether this article should be promoted to featured status are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Waveguide filter/archive1. Spinning Spark 08:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss merger of power optmizer, MPPT Mximum_power_transfer_theorem

Discussion is started at talk:Maximum_power_transfer_theorem Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Image for Joule heating

I am reporting this discussion. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)--Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No such thing as "current flow"?

Talk:Electric_current#Current_Flow_2

Please, someone. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion on Alternator

I've started a vote on the separation of the Automotive alternators section to a new article, and how it would be separated. There seem to be a number of things that require work with this article, but I have put just this to vote for now, with other issues to be addressed at a later date.

Please see Separation of automotive alternators to new article for the discussion and vote. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It look like User:Andy Dingley did his usual fine job and created Alternator (automotive). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, ta very much 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

IEEE technical societies

If you are a member of one or more of the IEEE technical societies, you may wish to identify yourself as such on Wikipedia. I’ve created Wikipedian categories for each of the 38 IEEE technical societies. The new Template:User IEEE member creates a userbox identifying the society and your membership grade and includes your user page in the relevant Wikipedian category. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a note. Yours aye, Buaidh (IEEE Life Member) 17:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Signal Processing

Wikipedia:WikiProject Signal Processing is listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects (version of 10:52, 9 February 2013).
—Wavelength (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

@Wavelength: Thanks for posting. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Article alerts?

Does this WikiProject have an alerts section (example)? XOttawahitech (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/about Digital Power Inverter

Dear electrical experts: This old Afc submission is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it's product-specific CSD-worthy spam Andy Dingley (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; it should be gone shortly. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ETAP

Hello again electrical experts. Here's another of those old drafts about to be deleted. Is there anything worth keeping? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of the content in the Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ETAP#Need_for_Power_Systems_Analysis section may be useful to Electric power system, Fault (power engineering) or Power-flow study. Would be more useful if there were footnotes. ~KvnG 13:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, since you don't indicate that it is a worthwhile as a stand-alone article, I won't postpone its deletion now. If anyone does want to move a section to another article, any edit will postpone the deletion long enough to do the work, and then we can change this one into a redirect to maintain the attribution. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly merged material potentially worth saving into Power-flow study. ~KvnG 16:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. To preserve the attribution, I moved the page to Power systems analysis and turned it into a redirect to Power-flow study. If you think there's a better title for the redirect, feel free to move it. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

New articles: Pseudocapacitance and Double-layer capacitance

Hello. A couple recent unreviewed articles for your consideration: Pseudocapacitance and Double-layer capacitance. Thank you. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Notifying of relevant FAR

I have nominated Electrical engineering for a featured article review here. The reason for this is a serious lack of citations: much of the article is completely unreferenced. It would be great if someone knowledgeable in this area could improve the article and help it remain an FA. Thanks! --Loeba (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

NOJA Power Corporate Page

Hi, was wondering whether there is anyone in this talk who is interested in creating and editing NOJA Power's Corporate Wiki page? www.nojapower.com.au. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremyDavis03 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 25 October 2013‎

This was cross posted to Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_42#NOJA_Power_Corporate_Page, where it was resolved. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Electromagnetic coil

See talk:Electromagnetic coil about a proposed rewrite -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bimal K. Bose

Hello, electrical engineers! Here's another one of those old abandoned Afc submissions. This appears to be a notable professor. The article needs some work though. Anyone interested in getting it ready for mainspace. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Raj Mittra

Dear engineering experts: This old Afc submission is about a very well-cited professor. It needs some references that are not from his university. Does anyone know where to look for these? I don't have access to academic journal databases. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

From IEEE Xplore I see that he edited the book Frontiers in Electromagnetics published in 2000 and received the 2006 IEEE Electromagnetics Award.

By the way, I believe anybody can search http://ieeexplore.ieee.org and get abstracts, but you have to pay for the full text.Constant314 (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I added that citation. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Another AfC submission - Rotating Armature Alternator

The AfC submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rotating Armature Alternator seems to be about a specific historical powerhouse. Please could you offer opinions on whether this submission is useable as the basis of a mainspace article. It will obviously need plenty of work, for example rephrasing material like "Let the sub-phases be called..." However, would it be acceptable as a starting point? There seem to be numerous sources. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should Nikola Tesla's birthplace be changed?

An RfC Should Tesla's birthplace be changed? has been created. Comments are welcome.- Mr X 15:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

IEEE style

IEEE style is in dire need of improvement. As I haven't written any technical papers in a while, I don't remember the format too well. I think this article should have examples of the in-text citation and the accompanying bibliographic note, as well as explanations on how the bibliography is formatted, similar to other articles on styles. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

A draft at AFC needs some specialist attention

Please review and evaluate Draft:Neutral grounding resistor for acceptance into mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Torque ripple stub

Is it OK to just add the WikiProject template to a talk page if there isn't one, and it seems that the article is relevant to the scope of that Project, but the editor has no expertise in that field? I'm not an electrical engineer, but I ended up on the subject of torque ripple from DC motors, but there is only a single link pointing to the Torque ripple article, and it's very short. —Nelg (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this topic is within the scope of this project. Articles can be included in the project at any time. ~KvnG 13:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go ahead and add the template. —Nelg (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Schön scandal

See talk:Schön scandal on whether the article should be about the scandal or the man, and thus the name of the article would be changed. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

kWh

Comment is invited at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Proposal on the question of whether kWh (with no space and no dot) is an acceptable unit symbol for use in articles, as opposed to restricting the choices to kW·h or kW h (i.e. with either a space or a dot). EEng (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

longwave radiation

Draft:NewFasant

FYI, there's a notice about this draft article at WT:PHYSICS -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit war at Electromagnet

There is a conflict going on at Electromagnet over the use of the term "ferromagnetic". Fresh opinions would be welcome, see Talk:Electromagnet#The term "ferromagnetic" in the introduction. --Chetvorno^TALK 08:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Carbon filament"

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Electrical engineering articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Donation of images for electromagnetism articles

(Cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics)

Hello everyone. I'm Stephen Murray, the Technical Writer for Computer Simulation Technology, who focus on electromagnetic simulation tools. One thing that we have recently realized is that we currently have quite a few example images/simulation models which illustrate devices and physical phenomena that Wikipedia doesn't currently have. Chiefly, these consist of various models of antennas, microwave filters and waveguide components, particle accelerator components and some nano-optical/photonic devices. We would like to donate images where we can in order to improve Wikipedia's coverage of these topics.

On the right are a couple of example pictures from our selection (illustrating microstrip antenna and multipactor effect respectively) - would these be helpful to the project? Because we have the simulation models, it would take relatively little effort on my end to adjust the angle of view or the field display. It's just a question of how to make these images as useful to the encyclopedia as possible. Any comments or suggestions would therefore be appreciated. Stephen Murray at CST (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

^ Printed Inverted-F Antenna, Antenna Magus version 4.0. Simulated using the finite integration technique (FIT) in CST STUDIO SUITE.
^ Simulated using the particle-in-cell (PIC) solver in CST STUDIO SUITE.

Reassessment

I have recently revised the Tetrode page, and would like to have it reassessed. How can I request a reassessment ? G4oep (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

RFC on Magneto (generator)

A Request for Comments is in progress as to whether Magneto (generator) should be: renamed to Magneto (bulk power generator); merged with Magneto); or left as is. Please participate. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The RFC itself can be found at Talk:Magneto_(generator)#RFC_on_the_Status_of_This_Article. ~Kvng (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Pulsed field magnet

FYI, there is a notice at WT:PHYSICS about Draft:Pulsed field magnet -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"Carrier-envelope phase"

FYI, there's a notice about Carrier-envelope phase at WT:PHYSICS -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"Crosstalk"

The usage and primary topic of Crosstalk and cross-talk is under discussion, see talk:crosstalk (disambiguation) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Three articles, two concepts

We have Volt, voltage and electric potential. It seems to me that we have three articles, but only two concepts (a physical force and its measurement). My first instinct is to merge voltage to volt, since volt is by far the weakest article, but more input would be welcome. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, Volt is an SI derived unit, electric potential is a term used for both electrostatic potential and the scalar potential in the electrodynamic case, and voltage is the difference between electric potentials at two points in space or in a circuit. While the three are related, I see each as a different concept. And none of them are forces in the physics sense. --Mark viking (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a fourth article: Electromotive force. I'm an EE and don't split hairs on this stuff. We should not expect readers to have to deal with this as they introduce themselves to the topic. Of course the gory details can be explained in the article body or bodies but having an introduction to a topic involving such technical definitions and spread over several articles is definitely a problem. Mark viking, if you oppose a merge, do you have any suggestions for making the topic more accessible? ~Kvng (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm a physicist with a minor in EE, and back in undergrad, my fellow EEs definitely knew the difference between capacitance and a Farad, just as they knew the difference between a volt and voltage. More generally, at the undergraduate level,

Maxwell's equations leads to the concept of an electric field.
The electric field is a conservative vector field in that line integrals of the electric field depend only on the endpoints. This allows one to represent the electric field as a scalar electric potential.
The difference in potential between two points is the voltage. Electromotive force is the voltage developed by a source such as a battery or generator.
The numerical value for voltage depends on the unit of measurement; the volt is the most common.

And people learn about the difference between field, potential and voltage even in (US) high-school physics. So I think the difference between these topics is much more than splitting hairs.

That said, I'm not opposed to a careful merger of electric potential, electromotive force, voltage, with targeted redirects to the proper sections. I'd leave volt out of it, it is easy enough to confuse volt and voltage as it is. I understand the desire for an accessible introduction. An alternative to merge would we to develop an introductory article. Right now voltage is more simply written than the other two and could become the nucleus of an intro article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Volt should not be merged with voltage or electric potential. Physical quantities are different from their units, and should be treated as separate entities, same as with ampere and electric current, and metre and length. For example, the history of the units is mostly irrelevant to the physical quantities, so it belongs only in a discussion of the units.

However, it may be good to merge electric potential as a section in voltage. In engineering practice, voltage can often but not always be expressed as a difference of potentials (see Fundamental theorem of vector calculus). However, in a real transformer with a secondary in a loop (therefore shorted) there is no meaningful way to assign a potential to each point of the loop. The secondary can be analyzed as a resistor and the secondary of an ideal transformer, so as to make possible to assign voltage potentials, but that is a construct that doesn't corresponds to the physical situation. If we conceptualize the loop as infinitely many ideal transformers secondaries interleaved with infinitely many resistors, then it becomes clear why there is no way to assign a potential: because the elements are distributed and in each section, the induced voltage in the transformers secondaries equals the voltage drop in the resistors.

Regards. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC).

Looks like Mark viking and Mario Castelán Castro would accept a merge of electric potential into voltage but volt should not be involved. Mario Castelán Castro, do you have any comment about electromotive force? ~Kvng (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

My 2 cents worth.

Volt is about the unit of measurement and should be a separate article.

Everything else is tied together by the equation E = -∇(φ) -σA/σt, where φ is the electrodynamic retarted electric scalar potential and A is the retarded magnetic vector potential.

Voltage is, to me, a circuit quantity. It’s what a voltmeter would read between two points in a circuit. If the leads to the voltmeter went through a region where σA/σt ≠ 0, then the voltmeter reading would depend on the path of the leads to the voltmeter and the voltage would be ill defined.

Electromotive force, I usually associate with a path integral of the electric field (as defined above) tangential to a definite path. Usually the path follows a conductor. Typical paths may include a battery, generator, transformer, loop antenna, microphone, transducer. EMF for a specific path is unique. The path may be implicit. In a particular usage, there may be no mention of the path integral, but it is there never-the-less. If the beginning point and ending point of the path integral were in a continuous region where σA/σt = 0 then the voltage measured between those points by a voltmeter connected to those points and entirely in the region would read a unique value and EMF would numerically be the same as the voltage.

Potential has more than one meaning. The article will have to deal with that. For me, potential is a field quantity, although potential is used as a synonym for voltage in both DC and AC circuits.

- The electrodynamic retarded scalar electric potential, which is used above in the equation for E. It is well defined everywhere except for points occupied by point charges. The difference in potential between two points is also well defined but may be physically meaningless. In general, the potential difference between two points is not the voltage between those two points.

- The electrostatic potential that applies to electrostatics and DC circuits or any situation where σA/σt = 0. In this case, the difference in potential between two points is the same as the voltage between those two points and EMF evaluated along any path is also equal to the same voltage.

Constant314 (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

WP should follow the authoritative Electropedia in this regard. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That link should probably be http://www.electropedia.org/. It is a wonderful site. --Mark viking (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No definitions for volt, electomotive force or electic potential on Electropedia. The voltage definition is not particularly accessible. ~Kvng (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That is crazy! You would think something ran by the IEC would at least include a dictionary of common terms. DeadFire999 (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Signal strength listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Signal strength to be moved to Electric field strength. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Nikola Tesla

BAn RFC: Should all discussions and proposals about Nikola Tesla's nationality, ethnicity and country of birth (broadly construed) be limited to the sub-page: Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity? has been posted here. Interested editors are invited to comment.- Mr X 20:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Qualcomm Snapdragon

I have shared a draft on the Talk page of the Qualcomm Snapdragon article here. The current article is sort of a mess and this is my attempt to clean it up and get something encyclopedic in place. I'm sharing the proposed re-write on the Talk page, since I have a COI/financial connection with Qualcomm. I thought I would drop a note here in case anyone from WikiProject Electrical Engineering has some familiarity with the subject and may have an interest. It is a system-on-chip product used in most Android phones. CorporateM (Talk) 00:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Gain listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Gain to be moved to Gain (electronics). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Bus Ducts listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Bus Ducts to be moved to Bus duct. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Lightbulb socket

Lightbulb socket has been proposed to be renamed, for the discussion, see talk:Lightbulb socket -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Lightbulb socket listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Lightbulb socket to be moved to Lamp base. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kalahasti P PrasadI

Dear engineers: Hee's an old abandoned draft that was never submitted for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and now it is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable professor? There isn't a Google scholar report, and the engineering college of which he was apparently head at one time, SVU College of Engineering, Sri Venkateswara University has a rather primitive web site (http://svuce.org/project1/main.html) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Delong (talk • contribs) 12:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Optics

FYI, I have nominated WPOptics for merger as a taskforce of WP:Physics, for the proposal, see WT:WikiProject Optics ; as optical engineering is a subfield of electrical engineering, I thought I'd let you know -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Optics listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:WikiProject Optics to be moved to WP:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Optics. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Article alerts added to this project

FYI Article alerts have been added do this project. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Rotating electrical machine articles need some attention.

Doubly fed electric machine - This is just unreadable, and the first sentence of the lede seems wrong. See Talk:Doubly fed electric machine. There's a COI problem with this article, but it is a real technology.
Armature - do these edits [1] make any sense? Some of this reads like it was machine-translated from a language with much longer sentences than English.

I'm not an electrical-machine expert. Can someone take a look at these? Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding armature- yes, it is terrible. Constant314 (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that the disambiguation page for field leads to stator. That's wrong. "Rotor" and "stator", and "armature" and "field" are independent. Sometimes (especially for large generators) the field is on the rotor and the output is on the armature.[2][3]. We need a separate article for "Field (electrical machine)" John Nagle (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

We have field magnet, so I had the disambiguation page for field link there. John Nagle (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Did some cleanup at armature. I'm trying to make at least the lede sections comprehensible to non-EEs. John Nagle (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added all related articles to Wikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineering and have done some cleanup. ~Kvng (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Doubly-fed electric machine

Proposed deletion of Singly-fed electric machine, on the grounds that nobody uses that term, except in a few articles about doubly-fed machines. The article has lacked references for 10 years. If anyone wants to remove the "prod", go ahead, but fix the article if you do, and write a comprehensible lede sentence. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I have cancelled your WP:PROD: "We don't delete awful articles, we improve them. If you think the subject is only notable in the context of doubly-fed electric machine, I suggest you propose a merge to Doubly-fed electric machine." I will try to improve the lead and add some refs. ~Kvng (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, rewrote singly-fed machine as just a definition, leading to motor and generator for details. John Nagle (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone with a background in rotary electric machines help with Doubly-fed electric machine? It's mostly been written by a COI editor who has patents in that area. But that's not the problem. The language is unreadable. It reads like machine-translated German. (One sentence: "Only practical with the evolution of control technology that avoids instability and discontinuity over the sub-synchronous to super-synchronous speed range, particularly at synchronous speed where induction ceases to exist, there are now three varieties of doubly-fed electric machine systems: 1) the Doubly-Fed Induction Electric Machine (DFIM), which is the conventional wound-rotor doubly-fed electric machine with an active winding set on the rotor and stator, respectively, and flux vector controlled rotor excitation through a multiphase slip-ring assembly; 2) the Brushless Doubly-Fed Induction Electric Machine (BDFIM), which is the brushless doubly-fed induction (or reluctance) electric machine with cascaded active winding sets of unlike pole-pairs on the stator assembly of which one is flux vector controlled and a flux focusing rotor assembly; and 3) Synchro-Sym electric machine system, which is the only Brushless Doubly Fed Synchronous Electric Machine (BDFSM).") Help. John Nagle (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is very difficult to read, but it is not worthless, so I wouldn't support deleting the article. On the other hand, if it was machine translated from copyrighted material, I believe the copyright survives the translation.Constant314 (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it was machine-translated; that editor just writes that way. I'm taking a shot at fixing it here: User:Nagle/sandbox/doublyfedintro. John Nagle (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"Thermal Management"

The usage and topic of Thermal Management is under discussion, see talk:Thermal management of electronic devices and systems -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Optical devices and Category:Optical instruments

Category:Optical devices has been proposed to be merged into Category:Optical instruments; for the discussion, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_21#Category:Optical_devices -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"Battery"

The usage and primary topic of "battery" is under discussion, see talk:battery (electricity) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

balanced fault <> symmetrical fault

Hello, I was reading [(power_engineering)] page. It say that a balanced fault is a synonym for a symmetrical fault. But according this article, it's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:4E1:6F00:A158:E9F8:76B8:4BF1 (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Electromagnetic induction with Faraday's law of induction

More opinions would be helpful.Constant314 (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Discuss here? ~KvnG 13:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest NOT merging these, however to reduce duplication by "see also" pointers. 70.27.152.243 (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The consensus was to not merge. It is a settled issue for now. Constant314 (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Project overlap

How is this project different from Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics? ~KvnG 15:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Outline of electrical engineering has electronics as a sub field of electrical engineering. I don't agree with some of the divisions--signal processing and control theory have a big overlap with electronics, for instance. But I have always thought of large scale electrical power generation and distribution as something outside of electronics and in EE. --Mark viking (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

So any article in WP:ELECTRONICS should also be in this project? ~KvnG 14:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Kvng No, that would not be ideal. Electrical engineering excludes most concepts in the broader field of electronics. Electrical engineering is its own concept. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Does someone want to take a stab a clarifying the project's scope? Here's what's currently said, "The project generally considers any article related to Electrical engineering to be within its scope." ~KvnG 20:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the voltage used should be the dividing line? Electrical Projects dealing with voltages of at least [whatever] Volt, while Electronics Projects work with voltages below that. 70.27.152.243 (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

48 volts is a commonly used as dividing point between signal and power electronics but there are examples of low-voltage power systems and high-voltage signal systems. Electrical engineering also covers both signaling and power applications of electricity. I really can't think of a clean way to differentiate these and I think the projects should be merged. ~Kvng (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I think anything about circuit design and function is electrical engineering. Articles about specific electronic products, such as the iPhone and its success might be in electronics but not in electrical engineering.Constant314 (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Test engineer needs review and content editing

Please see Talk:Test engineer# Gibberish. Thnidu (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Redirect of CAD

Please comment at Talk:CAD#Requested move 31 October 2016 on whether computer-aided design should be the primary topic for CAD and hence redirected there. SpinningSpark 23:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Aluminum building wiring needs review

Substantial edits were made to the Article on Aluminum building wiring in North America that should be peer reviewed ... see the talk page for a discussion. It also needs assessments.

EagleRJO (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.^[1]^[2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia.

Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas:

Editors

See submissions through external academic peer review
Format accepted articles
Promote the journal

Authors

Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review)
Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M (2017). "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001.
^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Power analyzer

Could someone please review Power analyzer. It currently reads as though it is a (COI) fork from wattmeter. Should it just be a redirect there, or is there sufficient functional difference? Thanks, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Besides anything else, it is a direct copy from the company's website, so I have deleted it as a copyvio. SpinningSpark 12:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Is Home Idle Load a neologism?

I'm aware of the problem of devices which consume standby power, but I've never heard it be referred to as Home Idle Load. Would somebody with a knowledge of power distribution kindly review this article? --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Me neither. I did a google search on Home idle load with double quotes (not home's idle load!) and most links on the 1st page of the result leads to NRDC page. Also, the user who created it has been blocked! I do sense Neologism μ Talk 22:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If this was the same topic as standby power then the right action would be delete, redirect, or merge. However, the article makes a distinction with stanby power right at the beginning of the lead. If I understand this correctly, the idle load is the power used by the home when the home user isn't doing anything. For instance, the fridge will come on by itself if its internal temperature rises. The home user didn't intervene for this to happen, but it is definitely not standby power. This is to be compared with the home user getting out the vacuum cleaner for instance. I don't think we should get too hung up on whether or not home idle load is a neoligism; the article title can be changed if necessary. The real question is whether this is a real topic or not. On that I'm not so sure. Domestic energy consumption is certainly a big environmental and economic issue nowadays, but I'm far from convinced that anyone is making a big distinction between fridges and vacuum cleaners. The only point to home idle load, as far as I can see, is that the data can easily be extracted from smart meters whereas standby power cannot. SpinningSpark 10:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It does appear to be mostly an NDRC thing but it looks like other organizations have picked it up. The article is integrated well with other articles in the topic area. I'm not inclined to propose a merge or nominate for deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Synchronous condenser

I have added Synchronous condenser to our project, requires assessment! μ Talk 18:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Already rated C-class by Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy so I carried that over. Rated as low importance for this project since it is not a core grid component. Please change if anyone thinks it is more central. I also added a few other nearby articles to the project: Static VAR compensator, Flexible AC transmission system and Thyristor controlled reactor. ~Kvng (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Linda Shapiro

The article Linda Shapiro has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I don't believe that Professor Shapiro meets the basic notability guideline, of having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I looked through the top 50 G-Hits for "professor Linda Shapiro" and quickly realized that there are multiple subjects, found no independent reliable sources providing coverage, and got to the point where the three words were each appearing separately in the article instead of together.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ★ Bigr Tex 03:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:DEPRODDED by David Eppstein. ~Kvng (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Scientists whose names are used as SI units

Template:Scientists whose names are used as SI units has been put up for deletion. SpinningSpark 16:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion closed with no consensus so we'll be keeping this. ~Kvng (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Peer review of Planar transmission line

I've put this article up for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Planar transmission line/archive1 with a view to taking it on to Featured Article status. All comments from project members would be very welcome. SpinningSpark 10:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. — The Transhumanist 10:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Rectiverter

Rectiverter is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rectiverter. SpinningSpark 22:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Measuring non-sinusoidal voltages

Please comment at Talk:Power factor as to whether that article should include a discussion as to why an averaging (non-RMS) multimeter will give incorrect results when measuring non-sinusoidal voltages. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Dangerous restart

Dangerous restart is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dangerous restart. SpinningSpark 10:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Three phase transformer

Greeting fellow collaborators. I went looking for an article on three phase transformers and found none. I hope to encourage someone who knows to add content to the transformer article or create a new article. I am particularly interested in whether the voltage ratio is the same as the turns ratio. Since there is a commingling of flux from all three phases in each leg of the transformer, my first thought is that the voltage ratio would not follow the turns ratio. Any one interested? Constant314 (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I have updated our Three-phase transformer redirect to point to Transformer_types#Polyphase_transformer which leads to Vector group and Zigzag transformer. A separate Three-phase transformer article would be a welcome contribution. If you don't get your question answered here, you might ask someone at Wikipedia:Reference desk. ~Kvng (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I still think that it deserves an article of its own and I hope someone with the requisite knowledge will do so. Constant314 (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Electricity for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Electricity is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Electricity until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Leader (spark)

Leader (spark) has been put up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leader (spark). SpinningSpark 23:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"Conductive" redirect

Many pages currently link to Conductive, which redirects to Electrical conductor. I wonder whether it ought to redirect to Electrical resistivity and conductivity, which is a separate article. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I would be cautious of changing a redirect target that has been around for so long (since 2004). The individual usages have to be examined on a case-by-case basis to see if this makes sense. While some of them could arguably be referring to either a physical conductor or the property of conductivity, in many cases the author clearly intended to link to the conductor article. Transmission medium even links to both pages in the same sentence contiguously. It is beyond argument in that example that the author intended the link to go to the electrical conductor page. SpinningSpark 17:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to examine the incoming links and modify the articles using WP:PIPED links on a case-by-case basis if the wrong topic is being referenced. ~Kvng (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Featured article candidate Distributed element circuit

This article is up for FA status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Distributed element circuit/archive1. For this to become a featured article and appear on the main page, it is vital that several editors review it and leave comments. SpinningSpark 17:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me to expand this article

I have created Wikipedia page on Hay's Bridge. Please help me to expand it from stub. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

This is an extremely well written page --BowdenDA (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom

I have started a Peer Review of Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom with a view to getting this to Featured Article status. The review page is here. I would be very grateful if editors would leave comments there. I would be even more grateful if you come along and support the article when it gets put up for FA. Thanks, SpinningSpark 12:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Locked Rotor Test / Blocked Rotor Test

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocked_rotor_test "It is also known as short circuit test, locked rotor test or stalled torque test.[1] " to be REMOVED

This article on Wikipedia states that it is also known as short circuit test. I think this is wrong because a short circuit test would literally mean there is a short circuit within the induction motor.

They are two separate types of circuit analysis. A Locked Rotor Test is like a motor that simply operates like a transformer or a simply inductive load, because the "rotor is locked". Where as a short circuit test is a literal short due to failure.

Can someone remove the term "Short Circuit Test" from the Locked Rotor Test article. It has caused massive confusion to the electrical community.

Further when we look at motor datasheets by manufacturers they state Full Load Current (FLC), LRC (Locked Rotor Current) and SC (Starting Current). Confusion occurs when the datasheet states SC current. So for a 37kW motor star-delta start, this could be FLC = 64A and SC = 179A. The SC acronym can get confused with "Short Circuit".

Therefore I suggest "It is also known as short circuit test, locked rotor test or stalled torque test.[1] " is removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.189.149 (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I looke3d at the article. None of the references in the lede uses the term "short circuit test". I removed it. Constant314 (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing multiple reliable sources using this term. That is our criterion for inclusion. As an encyclopaedia, it is our job to report the world as it is, not to right great wrongs that have been made out there. SpinningSpark 13:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

We already have Short-circuit test. If we determine that the blocked rotor test also uses this name, we'll need to add some hatnotes or other disambiguation. ~Kvng (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject electronics

There is a discussion concerning this wikiproject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics#Project scope. SpinningSpark 09:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Capacitive stylus

Will someone please take a brief look at / review of Draft:Capacitive stylus? It was submitted and declined and has been resubmitted quickly, so I just want a second opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Robert. A big problem is that all your references are commercial websites with advertising. Constant314 (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Well the editor addressed the only specific actionable comment left by the first reviewer and replaced the source. There might still be some issues with sourcing, but AFC review shouldn't be trying to get the sourcing perfect. The rule should be (but often isn't with many reviewers) that if the article would pass an AFD then it should be posted to mainspace. I don't see any major difficulty with this one, it's going to pass the notability test and it's not making any dubious or promotional claims. You might have to bite your tongue sometimes, but we shouldn't make new editors jump through hoops. It's very discouraging to make the changes requested and then have it rejected again. SpinningSpark 23:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Now declined by AngusWOOF because this is already covered in Stylus (computing). This seems like a reasonable action. We already have a Capacitive stylus redirect and I have adjusted it to point to Stylus (computing)#Capacitive stylus and left a message on Talk:Stylus (computing) about Draft:Capacitive stylus. ~Kvng (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Featured Articles

Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom has been nominated for Featured Article. Please leave comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom/archive1. Support is needed from more editors before it can be promoted. SpinningSpark 17:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Missing section or article: (extra-)low-voltage wiring, from more than a technical perspective

We don't seem to have an article or section on general-interest information on what "[extra-]low-voltage wiring/cabling" generally refers to, only technical and spec information from the engineering side, at Low voltage and Extra-low voltage, both of which are basically stubs that address only a few countries. I've added an entry, "* Voice, data, and video" to the VDV disambiguation page, but there is no article or section to which to refer readers, other than Extra-low voltage, which does not address various classes of and occupational specialties in low-voltage electrical cabling (and there are others, like home theatre and audiophile, and high-precision scientific and industrial). Similarly, there is nowhere to point redirects like Voice, data, and video; Voice, data and video; Voice, data & video; Voice-data-video; Voice–data–video; Voice/data/video; Voice data video; Video, data, and voice; Video, data and voice; Video, data & voice, Video, data, voice; Video-data-voice; Video–data–voice; Video/data/voice; Video data voice.

I would think that somewhere there's already info on WP about audophile and home theatre cabling, but all of this stuff should get WP:SUMMARY treatment at Extra-low voltage or at Low voltage (whichever seems most appropriate), in sections particular to well-defined general classes of use. And we need better cross-referencing between Low voltage and Extra-low voltage; when people who are not specialists use "low-voltage" (or "low-power" or "low-current") they are usually thinking of what is technically/legally more often classified as extra-low voltage (a term which is not in general usage among the public, only among specialists). So, they are apt to arrive at Low-voltage which [in its present stubby state] may not be really what they're looking for.

Some other content that should get in there is worker licensing/classification. E.g., one does not have to be an electrician or otherwise professionally certified to work on extra-low voltage installations (in most jurisdictions), but some classes of "low-voltage" will get into certification/licensure-required ranges in some places. Similarly, building codes are going to have requirements for some things that are technically "low"-voltage, but most often not when it comes to extra-low voltage. Basically, if it can cause a fire, or cause a burn or pacemaker failure to a human, or something like that, there's a higher chance a jurisdiction will impose some restrictions. All of this is encyclopedic information to have somewhere, but all we've got right now in the obvious places are a handful of technical/mathematical and national-specification notes. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC); revised 06:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard of extra-low voltage wiring, but looking at the article, it seems to be about power-supply voltages, not about audio and video signals. Is your point that consumer AV equipment is often powered from the same cables that carry signals? Or just that audio and video signal are at quite low voltages? The ELV limit of 50V sounds like what I'd call low voltage (like in 24 V landscape lighting), and high compared to what I'd expect in AV equipment. The standards are weird. Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

It's more that "low voltage" is a general term with broad application to anyone into electronics in general, systems and network administration, point-of-sale systems, security cameras, gamer PC modding, 3D printers, CNC controllers, drones and RC models, AV equipment, ham radio antennas, coax and cable modems, etc., etc. It basically means "everything that probably can't fry you or burn the building down", i.e., stuff it's legal and generally safe to work on without being an electrician. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting questions. The article about extra-low voltage is aimed at component-level engineers, not consumers, which is how it should remain. The low voltage article is the more general interest topic; it could be expanded to include a list of common applications such as wired remote controls, doorbells, building alarm wiring (Electromagnetic lock etc.), various video formats (Serial digital video, etc.) and audio formats (Intercom, Line level analog audio, etc). Binksternet (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Low voltage and extra low voltage are specific terms used in electrical power distribution applications. The existing articles should not have information on audio and video coatracked on to them; articles are supposed to be on a single topic. Low voltage has no specific definition in audio or video, and when used generically in those fields is likely to have a radically different meaning – 500 volts would not be considered low voltage in audio, but it is within the power distribution definition. Basically, it is voltages that might be supplied to consumers as opposed to high voltages (1kV+) found on transmission lines. Extra low voltage was defined because voltages safe to use in bathrooms etc were required. I'm not convinced that a low-voltage audio or video article is viable. Is there such a thing as high-voltage video to contrast it with? Are there some general statements about low-voltage wiring that could be made? We do have an article HT (vacuum tube) covering high voltages in old TVs, but that is a specific application and its hard to see how a low-voltage article could be focused and not become a useless rambling list of everything consumer. SpinningSpark 14:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Good point. No need to mess up power distribution context with signal-related trivia. It's clear than +4 dBu is higher than -10 dBv, but it has not place in power-related articles. Retired electrician (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

We do already have Audio and video interfaces and connectors for AV wiring and connectors. ~Kvng (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Makes me wonder if EmPower (aircraft power adapter) and USB Power Delivery and Wall warts belong in Extra-low. !!!!

Edit war on Electric field

There is an edit war on Electric field over what pictures are appropriate to illustrate the article. Please drop by and give an opinion and help end this. It doesn't have to take long - just look at the pictures and say whether they are appropriate. At Talk:Electric field#Removal of cat picture. Thanks. --Chetvorno^TALK 23:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit war on electrocution

Regarding the inclusion of 'severe injury' in the definition of 'electrocution', this appears to be from both the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries perpetuating this misuse of the term. Many attempts have been made to correct the Wikipedia definition - but a couple of people refuse to accept sources other than those 2 listed above.

The CDC, OSHA, CCOHS - all make the distinction that "Electrocution results when a human is exposed to a LETHAL amount of electrical energy", leaving no room for injury alone.

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/98-131/pdfs/98-131.pdf?id=10.26616/NIOSHPUB98131 - top of page 6 https://www.osha.gov/dte/outreach/construction/focus_four/electrocution/electr_ig.pdf - Content for Topic 1: A. Definition https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/safety_haz/electrical.html - What kinds of injuries result from electrical currents?

This is also the distinction as exercised in the legal and medical professions, though citing direct sources has been difficult to come by. If the current Wikipedia definition is to be supported - how do you distinguish between 'shock' and 'electrocution'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by N8skow (talk • contribs) 14:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you open a discussion on the article talk page to try and get consensus with the editors actually involved in this. SpinningSpark 15:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Requesting a look at Hydroelectric cell

Hydroelectric cell is a type of fuel cell or similar that appears to be misrepresented in the article as 'a primary source of green energy' and an alternative to a solar cell.

The article makes claims such as "Hydroelectric cell different versions have been reported to produce green electricity using water droplets only." and "Recent studies confirm that Hydroelectric Cell generates green electricity by splitting of water only and is an alternative to Solar Cell and Fuel cell". This makes it sound like this technology is the equivalent of a photovoltaic cell, a "hydro-voltaic cell" if you will, which I don't believe is accurate.

The article also makes statements such as "Hydroelectric Cell working is a unique device based on the combination of material property, oxygen deficiency, Nano science and electro-chemistry." This sounds to me like an exceptionally vague string of jargon and buzz words that doesn't have much meaning once you drill down.

The article also gets rather promotional in the 'performance', 'advantages', and 'usage' sections and was created and heavily edited by a few SPAs that appear to have a COI, making me more suspicious.

Without sufficient familiarity with the topic or expertise in the field, I don't know if this needs minor editing, major editing, or deletion.

Thank you! Paisarepa 18:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

From the article it appears that the energy comes from oxidizing zinc to zinc oxide. That would make it an alternative to a primary chemical cell rather than a fuel cell or a solar cell. I guess the greenness depends on how greenly you can get unoxidized zinc. Constant314 (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Constant314 Zinc > zinc oxide cells have been widely used to power hearing aids for a very long time. See Zinc–air battery -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that there was anything suspicious. In fact, I meant the opposite, that is that there was a plausible chemical energy source. In other words, it is not a free energy source. Constant314 (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

They've been published in a number of different journals now, but I'm not seeing any counter-articles. I think we should be hesitant about declaring this a hoax until we have some sources saying it's bollocks. For now, just concentrate on cleaning up the POV. SpinningSpark 20:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity

Hi all, I created a new article A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity and filled in much content. I was very surprised the article did not exist before as I had already knew of it from my graduate studies in physics. I have already posted on the physics WikiProject talk page inviting them to edit the page and it got some help. In the course of filling out the page, I noticed it is used by engineers as well, so I also wanted to extend the invitation here as well. Thanks!Footlessmouse (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Contact Resistivity and Circular Transmission Line Method

I have written a six page Word document with equations, tables, and figures on the above subject area. I believe my article is within the wikipedia guidelines. For a brief time period at JPL I was quite knowledgeable about contact resistance. I have no propriety interest in the article, all of my work was previously submitted and published in journals or conference abstracts. I would like someone to review my efforts and enter it into the encyclopedia because the present contact resistance article is limited in scope. Dale R Burger (talk) 05:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Dale R Burger, if your proposal is to improve Contact resistance, you should post details at Talk:Contact resistance. ~Kvng (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dale R Burger: Dale, we can't review your proposed article (or addition to an article) unless you first post a draft here, which I think you have already been told at the Teahouse. The draft you created at User:Dale R Burger/sandbox is essentially empty, containing only a title and the submission to Articles for Creation. SpinningSpark 17:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

AfD about passive integrator circuits

If anyone here knows where to look for sources about integrator circuits, your help at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Passive integrator circuit would be appreciated! — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Featured article review for Atomic line filter

Atomic line filter is a featured article under review--see the discussion. A notice was posted to the physics wikiproject, but this topic may be of interest to EE editors as well. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Rain power

Wondering if there are editors here that would like to comment on this discussion - Talk:Hydropower#Rain power. Please get involved on the linked page with your thoughts. Helper201 (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

High-voltage transmission line Kassø-Tjele

Hi. I translated Draft:High-voltage transmission line Kassø-Tjele from Danish Wikipedia. I would appreciate if anyone would check that I got all the technical terms translated correctly, and that the article language usage is generally in order. Feel free to ask if anything needs clarification. Thank you for your help! --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Because it is a technical topic and relies on foreign sources I predict it will take a long time to get this declined at WP:AFC. You're probably better off moving it to mainspace directly. It is definitely in good enough shape for that. I will watchlist this draft and help out as needed however you choose to introduce it. ~Kvng (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

No need to wait for AFC, it doesn't have an AFC template in any case. I've moved it into mainspace. I've changed the title to Kassø-Tjele high-voltage transmission line to be more in line with usual English grammar. SpinningSpark 20:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng and Spinningspark: Thank you for your help. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Pellegrini Articles

While reviewing the "articles needing attention" over in Wikiproject Physics, I ran across two which... might be more in this project's wheelhouse? Or they might be WP:FRINGE, I'm genuinely not sure. They certainly don't seem to have a lot of secondary coverage. Can someone here voice an opinion as to whether these two articles should be cleaned up, pared down, or nominated for deletion?

Thanks for any comments. PianoDan (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Both articles are primary sourced to books and articles by Bruno Pellegrini (and his close associates), both promote the author, and both seem to have been created by the same WP:SPA. The only secondary source with significant coverage that I could find for Cut-insertion theorem is quite critical of that approach.[4]. The papers are not well cited (they are mostly cross-cited); the theorems do not appear to have caught on, and don't appear to be notable. SailingInABathTub (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I was about to say much the same thing. This is self-promotion either by Pellegrini himself, or more likely one of his students. The first article is entirely based on primary sources, and the second one only has sources not associated with Pellegrini for statements on the work of historical figures. I also note that Pellegrini has been given an redlinked entry in List of people in systems and control. I think that page needs looking at as well. There are an awful lot of redlinks. The page shouldn't be a list of everyone who has ever written a control theory paper. SpinningSpark 11:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I spotted that one too - I've done a first pass clean-up to remove the non-notable entries. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the sanity check. I'll go ahead and start AfD. PianoDan (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they are FRINGE though, not in the sense that they are promoting something that no one else believes. They are just not all that important in network analysis or control theory as far as I can tell. SpinningSpark 17:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I'm not knowledgeable enough in the specific areas to make that determination, so I didn't mention the possibility on the AfD pages. PianoDan (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Recent version of IEC 61000 series standards

Hi all,

I'm wondering about the actual version in some IEC 61000... articles. E.g. "The current version is Third Edition dated 2014-05-15" (of the IEC 61000-4-5). It is still valid, of course, but there is a more recent version with the Amendment 1 of 2017 (see [5], for valid versions have a look at ""Additional information" / Historie for the current / valid versions). Are the "major releases" the only one that should appear? Or is the article (and some other) simply outdated? The latest edits are from 2020, a long time after the release of the AMD 1:2017. 80.79.86.132 (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Statements like "The current version is..." date quickly. Best to use {{As of}} or remove completely, if possible. A lot of maitenance edits may occur but this doesn't mean that anyone has recently intelligently reviewed the content of the articles. ~Kvng (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

[1] Printed Inverted-F Antenna, Antenna Magus version 4.0. Simulated using the finite integration technique (FIT) in CST STUDIO SUITE.

[2] Simulated using the particle-in-cell (PIC) solver in CST STUDIO SUITE.

[3] Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M (2017). "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001.

[4] "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]