Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics/Archive 1

message: I think its essential to use conn dots on schematics. THose without them are so hard to understand, trying to find out if a wire is just crossing or is actually connected to another wire. So the package must support conn dots--88.109.39.70 17:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, definitely.  But then we get into style specifications, which can make the images more consistent.  European rectangle resistors vs american squigglies, arrow sources vs two circles, etc.  But is it a good use of time?  — Omegatron 18:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not worth the effort to impose this sort of uniformity. *But* if there is an international standard out there which states a preference of one over the other, I'd go for that. Sort of like the IUPAC suggesting the following spelling for aluminium. I think what is more important that we aim for clarity in any schematics that we draw. --HappyCamper 00:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection dots on schematics 

message: When drawing resistors on paper I use the squigglies as I find it easier than drawing a rectangle. When using a CAD package I obviously use their symbols. I personally slightly prefer the squigglies but thats only because I was brought up using them. I think most packages now use rectangles for resistors and, to be honest, it does look less fussy. But I dont really mind. Current sources are usually shown as two interlinked circles with an arrow at the side denoting polarity. Voltage sorces are denoted as a single circle with an arrow at the side denoting polarity.(sharp end is positive). But diamonds are OK, its just I think circles are more standard.--Light current 23:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, diamonds are controlled sources, which are different.  I'm talking about the difference between european and american symbols:
  — Omegatron 14:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: But when I originally mentioned it I said it was likely a waste of time.  So let's drop it.  We can talk about more important things.  — Omegatron 14:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: There are instructive reasons why boxes are used in certain contexts - after all, a schematic is only an approximation to the behaviour of a circuit - the intention of a schematic is to provide a trained person to gather all the relevant information quickly, whether by noticing particular components in the circuit, quickly calculating voltages, etc ... I personally like the squigglies rather than the boxes (because they take up less room in an image). Ditto for your suggestion. --HappyCamper 00:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbols 

message: WikiProject Electronics or WikiProject Electricity?
Basically, how broad do we want it?  — Omegatron 06:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think electronics will be quite broad enough!!--Light current 12:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Just been rethinking! One possibility is to call it WikiProject Electronics/Electrical engineering if people want to include the heavy current/ high voltage stuff.--Light current 01:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I know! but I have a lot of time!(as it says on my Talk page) ;-) Anyway if any electrical engineers suggest it in the future we can consider it--Light current 01:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should stick with "Electronics" at the moment. It's a comfortable level of abstraction we are working at, and it would probably warrent another WikiProject if other fields are included. That is to say, I think more than 75% of this project is focused on circuit level implementations and their idiosyncracies. --HappyCamper 00:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Added a proposed statement of scope of project--Light current 14:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: Could we please change the template names so they start with 'electron' rather than 'electro'. The existing template may imply electr-omagnets, or electro-mechanaical, electro-chemical things etc. Electron is pretty obvoius to anyone.--Light current 15:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, good suggestion: I'll move them soon. I used "Electro" because there was an existing stub with that, but your idea is better. - Alessio Damato 16:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template titles 

message: I have the original paper on 'Gaussian  magnitude filters' by Milton Dishal and so I would be prepared to contribute a para or 2 on these filters if no one else wants to! Please let me know if you wish me to start on it.--Light current 21:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: why not :-) do it and good luck (and remember to add the right template to the talk pages of what you write) - Alessio Damato 16:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hehe.  just do it.  i don't own the article anymore than you do.  besides, the reason i listed it was because it was on my personal to do list for a very long time and was never going to happen.   — Omegatron 03:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give the full citation of this paper so I can obtain a copy of it? Maybe we can collaborate on this one (provided that Real Life gives me a chance to donate more time for this). Nevertheless, quite interesting... --HappyCamper 00:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaussian Filters 

message: In name of the wikiproject, I sent a private email to the only developer of xcircuit. He has been very nice: he replied to me very quickly and answered all my questions. We are still discussing about e few points, I´ll write what I learnt from the discussion in the xcircuit section of the project. I hope you don´t mind I remove the other two short comments, since the things I know replied to our doubts. I will keep you updated when I get more news. Alessio Damato 21:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is charge decay?  Seriously, what are referring to when you say charge decay?  Are you referring to electric charge?  Electric charge appears to be an absolutely conserved quantity (in fact, it is the absolute conservation of electric charge that implies the existence of a gauge field to enforce local charge conservation).  Can you be more specific? Alfred Centauri 02:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I said on the to do list that we should create an article on charge decay.  See the two linked articles.  It's just the processes by which a charged conductor "leaks" charge into the environment and becomes neutral, from what I understand.  — Omegatron 16:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This charge decay thing might be related to the MOS Capacitors in ICs which need to be refreshed continueously. --Davy Jones 06:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Now I understand.  From what I've read at the links on charge decay, I submit that this subject is better suited for the physics project than the electronics project so I agree with LC on this one.  Alfred Centauri 00:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Its sort of half and half!. I think the original author was looking at if from a utilisation standpoint and not a utilites standpoint. I tried to add stuff about PFC as the power co would see it. So we could claim it as one of ours and tidy it I suppose.--Light current 21:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xcircuit 

message: What is charge decay? Is it something to do with capacitors?--Light current 01:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is charge decay?  Seriously, what are referring to when you say charge decay?  Are you referring to electric charge?  Electric charge appears to be an absolutely conserved quantity (in fact, it is the absolute conservation of electric charge that implies the existence of a gauge field to enforce local charge conservation).  Can you be more specific? Alfred Centauri 02:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I said on the to do list that we should create an article on charge decay.  See the two linked articles.  It's just the processes by which a charged conductor "leaks" charge into the environment and becomes neutral, from what I understand.  — Omegatron 16:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This charge decay thing might be related to the MOS Capacitors in ICs which need to be refreshed continueously. --Davy Jones 06:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Now I understand.  From what I've read at the links on charge decay, I submit that this subject is better suited for the physics project than the electronics project so I agree with LC on this one.  Alfred Centauri 00:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrostatics? 

message: I think Power factor correction could be touched up. I'm not sure if this is better under electricity or electronics, it is somewhat relevant to both. Snafflekid 21:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its sort of half and half!. I think the original author was looking at if from a utilisation standpoint and not a utilites standpoint. I tried to add stuff about PFC as the power co would see it. So we could claim it as one of ours and tidy it I suppose.--Light current 21:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Power factor correction 

message: Its very pleasing to see so much progress being made so quickly here. As the electrican once said "Many hands make light work"!--Light current 00:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I´m pleased as well, but I expected it since I just wrote the basic structure and guidelines of the project, so there was (and there is still) a lot of work to do. Thanx to everybody: we are not many people (yet), but we are working very good together :-) Alessio Damato 00:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress 

message: Hi, since I have seen that this thing of the mindstretchers was quite interesting and successful, why don´t you start a "subsection" of the project just about it?? then, all the answers we get may be moved to a proper article. A possible choice might be Wikipedia:WikiProject_Electronics/Mindstretcher or something similar. - Alessio Damato 21:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I dont know. Its just me and Alfred having a bit of fun discussing things at the moment. Maybe when we come to some conclusions we might see what we can do with them! --Light current 21:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, the arguments/discussions may have relevance to the capacitor, inductor, and transmission line pages. Or they may not! Well just have to wait and see!--Light current 23:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mindstretcher article?? 

message: :What we call the electrostatic force or Coulomb force is due to charged particles exchanging virtual photons.  What we call EM radiation is due to real photons.  The exchange of virtual photons between charged particles is a 'private' affair between the particles.  The exchanged virtual photons cannot be directly detected.  Alfred Centauri 00:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If one calculates the magnetic moment of the electron without considering the self-interaction with virtual photons, one gets an answer that is not in agreement with experiment.  Adding in the virtual photon interactions (a non-trivial calculation!) gives a theoretical answer that matches the experimental value to better than 1 part per billion:  see Anomalous magnetic moment. Alfred Centauri 10:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: "Spin" is a quantum mechanical concept used to describe an extra degree of freedom that small physical systems like particles seem to have. The mathematical formulation of it is exceptionally beautiful, and is related to generalized angular momentum and group theory. --HappyCamper 00:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No 5: Virtual Photons 

message: I am finding that there is enough material to warrant both semiconductor and semiconductor device pages.  The semiconductor page is very well written and did not need much work. And, it may be too academic for many people who are interested in components. With enough disambiguation and cross linking, the pages are becoming complementary.
I think that the transistor page could use some pruning with stuff being moved to semiconductor device. Snafflekid 01:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK thanks for your work on semiconductor & semiconductor devices. I agree that transistor is too large and needs pruning.--Light current 01:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiconductor merge 

message: When I edited the transistor page, I changed the explanation of the BJT operation from a voltage controlled device to a current controlled device. I figured sooner or later it would be questioned, and I think I understand the confusion. In circuitry the transistor is typically "controlled" by applying a voltage to the base-emitter junction, if the base-emitter voltage is above approx. 0.7V the transistor is on. There is even an equation for collector current to base-emitter voltage, Ic=Is(exp(Vbe/Vt))
:A transistor is ON at any positive bias voltage. Look at the equation for collector current--Light current 02:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please consider changing this back. We have been thro this discussion, THe BJT is voltage controlled. See Bill Beatys site: amasci.com--Light current 00:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I dont think he says actually that a  BJT voltage-controlled insulator does he. He says the depletion layer in some ways acts like a voltage controlled insultor. Any way the BJT is more voltage controlled than current controlled would you not say? The question of photoelectric effects etc are neither here nor there as far as normal transistor action is involved.--Light current 00:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Ah yes that's his short version. The long version is better. We all? know how to turn on a transistor and we dont use a battery across the BE. But sometimes we do use the voltage drop across a diode as per current mirror don't we?. If you maintained the BE voltage at say 0.65 V are you saying that there is a condition where it would not have any collector current flowing?. I've not heard of this one. Do you have any details?--Light current 03:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  BJT, voltage-controlled or current-controlled