Talk:Shunt (electrical)

message: hi, is this thing on? I am trying to come to terms with the shunt(electrical) page and would like add my own spin on the thing. Mostly just clarification with a slightly different approach to the explanation itself. 
once I get the hang of this place I will be right back, need to get advice. Thx1138samos3 (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

message: Anyone with experience using current shunts knows that their application to an inappropriate instrument can lead to disaster. I submit This Application Note for inclusion in the External Links section of this article to advance user awareness in this crucial but little understood area. Who knows, it could even save a life. I'm the author of the piece, which apparently disqualifies me from linking to it myself (as unenforceable a rule as that might be). Regardless, anyone contemplating measurements using a current shunt should read this information first.  
Finally, this Note was previously linked and subsequently removed as spam. If such is the conclusion after this attempt, I'd like an explanation. Rwl10267 19:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that User:Rwl10267 is a Dataq Instruments employee and we've been having a problem with dataq.com external link spam. See User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Is_Spam_ANY_link_to_an_external_site.3F.3F for details. I recommend not adding the dataq.com link. Thank you. (Requestion 20:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that the value of the external links be evaluated on their merit as opposed to a snap judgement and prejudice on the part of Requestion. Do the links, and the one on this topic specifically, further the efficacy of the article -- yes or no? As a sidebar DATAQ Instruments puts much talent and effort into advancing the understanding and overall education of electrical measurement instrumentation for our customers in a non-commercial sense, and we have edited article content (beyond mere external links) whenever appropriate. The links branded by Requestion as spam have survived many such reviews by other other editors. As such, his comment that "we've had a problem with dataq.com" should be translated to "I've had a problem...".Rwl10267 21:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not true. A different editor had to delete  your dataq.com spam and warn you  back 2004. That is just one example. (Requestion 21:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guilty as charged...three years ago before I understood the rules. Can you find a recent example, or am I scarred for life? Better yet, I'll ask you this question for the third time with the fervent hope that you will not again refuse to answer: What is it about This Application Note that constitutes spam? Treat it as an education process for me. I'd really like to know, and I mean that honestly. Rwl10267 13:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, here are some recent examples of other editors removing dataq.com linkspam    . Let me quote two of the summaries: "revert to remove non-relevant commercial link" and "rm link to unreliable article." For why your link constitues spam see the WP:COI guideline which says to avoid "linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)." Please also see WP:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest. Your incredible persistence with adding dataq.com links clearly shows your conflict of interest. (Requestion 19:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but you have to admit that I've gotten so much better. The ones you cut survived for months and several spam sweeps before meeting your mighty sword. Tell you what, I've got better things to do than debate this matter with you, and I'm sure you with me. What if I fold the content of This Application Noteinto the article. I'd edit it somewhat, but not to remove commercial content, since that doesn't exist. This effort would be time-consuming compared to a simple link, but at least the content would be included. Do me a favor? Review the link for improprieties and let me know if it's suitable largely as-is. I don't want to go through this effort only to have the article revert to a previous version because of another breech in protocol. Thanks. Rwl10267 12:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes I admit, you have gotten much better. :) I'm a spam fighter and I'll be happy as long as I don't see that dataq.com external link any more. It would be fine with me if you added parts of your application note to this article but I would recommend a complete re-wording and re-structuring. Just like I'm a spam fighter, there are many Wikipedians who specialize in copyright violations. So if you just copy and paste chunks of your app note they will be quickly detected and deleted. It is also best to avoid mentioning any specific products, keep it as generic as possible, this is an encyclopedia after all. (Requestion 19:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your guidance. Rwl10267 12:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measurements using current shunts 

message: Mere months after this battle with Requestion, the application note in question has been linked by a completely independent source for the Isolation amplifier article. Spam, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder. Rwl10267 (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ya gotta love it 

message: In Applications, Defective device bypass, there seems to be something wrong in the statement that higher electrical resistance "creates" additional voltage.
QUOTE << When the filament burns out in one of the incandescent light bulbs, the electrical resistance becomes very high. The much higher voltage that this creates (equal to the full line voltage rather than the normal voltage divider level) >> END QUOTE
69.196.178.162 (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the statement is correct, but perhaps its meaning is unclear. In the example given, Christmas tree lamps, the lamps are wired in series. E.g. say 22 lamps supplied at 220 V, each lamp "sees" 220/22 = 10V. However, the full 220 V appears across the burned-out lamp, causing the shunt to short out and re-storing the circuit. The voltage across the remaining 21 is now higher than before, i.e. 220/21 = 10.5 V. Suckindiesel (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible incorrect statement 

message: QUOTE << In this case the shunt, a manganin resistor of accurately known resistance, is placed in parallel with the load so that all of the current to be measured will flow through it. >> END QUOTE
That doesn't make sense to me. I changed it to "in serie". Anon
Doesn't make sense to me either, I see it's been changed back to "parallel" again, which is incorrect Suckindiesel (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible incorrect statement 

message: Does anybody other than me feel that the three figures in this chapter are, at least at first look, rather misleaing?
On any first look the resistors in the diagrams look like the point is to show them as being connected in series with the load, when they are indeed meant to be understood as being shunted (in parallel) with the meter. 
Should there be made new figures, or should one just add some explicit description of this in the text? 
–Øyvind Teig (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in current measuring