Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics/Archive 3

message: I think we should standardize the use of symbols, notation, and terminology as much as possible across all electronics-related articles.   -- Rdrosson 02:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Table moved to project page for visibility & comments by wider audience--Light current 16:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Well I agree with all the above except, guess which? Yes, I really think damping factor should be zeta, its used in all the books and texts I have and is universally understood.--Light current 11:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The idea of the table of standard symbol is alright: just wait for a while and then add it to the main article. About the damping factor, according to its definition, it is defined as the ratio between two loads. Since the universal symbol for a generic load is Z, it would be confusing to use the same symbol for something different. In the Damping factor article DF is used, that looks alright. Alessio Damato 13:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Please be careful here. There are two sorts of damping factor. Im talking about the one measured in rad/sec. (not the ratio of 2 loads)--Light current 14:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes I think the table of symbols could now go on the main page and be accepted as policy, unless someone objects. We should get more comments anyway if its on our front page! I would leave it on the main page a few weeks for comments before giving it its own sub page.
--Light current 21:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Table of standard symbols

message: ::The imaginary unit is  \ j \  in network theory but, is really  \ i \  in mathematics theory. Also, take special care of vector quantities. --Davy Jones 02:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I think we should  use j for the imaginary operator. i can be confused with current!--Light current 01:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: j is the standard symbol for -1^1/2 in electronics, no question about it. Snafflekid 04:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This has already been discussed elsewhere, and j should be used in electronics articles.  — Omegatron 05:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[imaginary unit]] 

message: There is a difference between I for DC current and i for ac current. Also, while taking Laplace transformation of circuits, the initial consideration is of i(t) and then we convert it to I(s). Also, we cant just go by using symbols that confuse; don't we need to check the rules? Ilso, to limit page size and to make it look more professional, how about writing the dimensions as dimensions instead of the word form and make a separate column for SI units and dimensions? --Electron Kid 00:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what the goal is.  If the goal is to help explain these concepts to people who are struggling to understand them, then it seems to me that we would want to spell things out as much as possible.  If the goal is to write a bunch of technical mumbo-jumbo that only engineers and Ph.D. mathematicians can understand, then I think we should try to use the most arcane and obscure abbreviations possible. -- Rdrosson 03:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current symbols 

message: Can some other people comment on whether weighting filter should cover any old type of weighting, whether the audio weighting filters should get their own article, or whether A-weighting should be separated from the other audio weightings? See Talk:weighting filter and Talk:A-weighting.  — Omegatron 05:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no strong feelings on this subject, but I think that 'weighting' is maybe more commonly used for audio purposes than for anything else. So IMHO article should be called 'audio weighting filters' and include A weighting filter. Other weigthing filters can be mentioned at the end of the article or linked to if there ar other articles about 'weighting filters' being used in non-audio applications.--Light current 17:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll weigh in. From what I know and have read weighing deals with adapting a signal to the human acoustic and visual system. Most recording systems are able to detect frequencies linearly but ears and eyes are non-linear. That's what I know. A-weighting is not the only commonly used filter, μ-weighting is common in telephony. Audio weighting is definitely large enough to be its own page and audio is the major application of weighted filters. Snafflekid 18:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. Weighting is a general scientific term,used in statistics and epidemiology. There are many weighting curves used in telephony (psophometric P53 etc, telephone instrument weightings etc). Audio may be the most common use, but A-weighting is not the most commonly used curve: ITU-R 468 dominates the broadcast and professional markets outside the US.  I'm against the narrowing of meanings, and would rather see unlimited specialist pages forming a tree of knowledge, starting from a 'root'page which introduces the field, leaving it open for all to add to. Weighting is used in areas as unusual as UV weighting for sunburn skin damage.  --Lindosland 14:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, well were only dealing with electronics on this project as yet and in fact the page title isweighting filters. You would need to get a very broad consensus to implement your ideas.--Light current 14:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  weighting filters 

message: why was the drawing circuits section moved to the talk page?? we didn't talk about it. I think it should remain on the main page, as long as we take a firm decision. Alessio Damato 21:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's really a decision to make.  It's just a list of information that would be useful.  Until a perfect program comes around with all the features we want, I guess we're just choosing on a case-by-case basis?  — Omegatron 21:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, put it on its own page. It was tending to dominate the main page- thats why I moved it--Light current 23:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  drawing circuits 2 

message: There used to be all kinds of info on this page.  Why was it removed? — Omegatron 02:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive only moved the stuff about drawing systems to talk. To what else are you referring?--Light current 02:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is everything??