Binksternet (talk | contribs) archive |
|||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
}}{{#if:|, and '''''[[{{{6}}}]]'''''}}, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know? talk page]]. |
}}{{#if:|, and '''''[[{{{6}}}]]'''''}}, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know? talk page]]. |
||
|} <!-- [[{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}]], [[{{CURRENTYEAR}}]] --> [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]] <small>(<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?user=Rudget logs]</span>)</small> 09:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
|} <!-- [[{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}]], [[{{CURRENTYEAR}}]] --> [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]] <small>(<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?user=Rudget logs]</span>)</small> 09:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
: I enjoyed your [[Yucca Flat]] article and thought you might be interested to know it is one of the most viewed DYK articles in July. See stats at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cbl62/sandbox3 . Good article and nice hook. [[User:Cbl62|Cbl62]] ([[User talk:Cbl62|talk]]) 17:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:50, 16 July 2008
Wikistalking
I've been aware for some time that my edits are being frequently adjusted/deleted/mangled and just plain monkeyed with by some one who uses your name. It's a case of wikistalking! Or is it? On looking into your contribution history, it appears to actually be you. The surprising bit is that there is such an overlap of interests. Audio, WWII, some aspects of crypto, ...
Your edits are often improvements in style or clarity, especially when I was attempting to shoehorn something into an existing niche. Some are the usual difference of opinion, stylistically. Still others are more substantial.
Under this last rubric, we find the deletion of a point at Loudspeakers regarding the inverse relation between cone size and distortion at low frequencies. It is so well known as to be a triviality that response for any driver drops after a point related to size (and impedance match to free air), not resonance (that's an additional issue having to do with mass and restoring force which are in principle independent of cone size).
That being so, it's clear that a larger cone will begin to roll off at some lower frequency, mass and restoring force being held constant. The distortion issue is slightly less clear. There are magnetic changes which occur with increased VC current (ie, at higher excursion) and there are mechanical effects which are more serious at or near mechanical limits (ie, at higher excursions). Furtheremore, higher excursions exacerbate the effects of some construction variances, specifically an noncentered voice coil. Thus we see that greater excursion is correlated with greater distortion causing effects. The unclearness comes from some drivers which are optimized for high excursion at the expense of other issues (often greater cone/voice coil mass or decreased efficiency from an underhung VC. The point is one which Kippel in Germany has investigated at some length and for which articles (in JAES etc) go back as far as the 1930s (at least that I've seen reference to). So, to decrease distortion, reduce excursion for the average driver, and to increase low frequency output (w/o Bose style -- or any -- electronic compensation) increase the size of the driver. All assuming lack of some impedance matching enclosure such as horn or some such.
This leaves us with exactly the point in the lines you deleted. Smaller drivers tend toward higher distortion at the same output level, and with higher excursion, also required in smaller drivers Larger drivers reduce the excursion requirement, and so -- other things being equal -- the distortion. Since the situation is exacerbated at lower frequencies (ie, with subwoofers) larger is still more better in them.
Finally, for the ie (not i.e.) and eg (not e.g.), these are purely stylistic differences not Holy Writ. Are you one who does not insert a comma after the penultimate item in a list, or one who inserts a comma there? One is termed the Oxford style, both are widely sued by the very literate. In my case I don't use the periods. You do, but it's not clear to me that you are correct in zapping the periodless versions out of hand.
Best wishes, and happy wikistalking. ww (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Winston, you and I appear to share a couple of key interests. I've been a longtime consumer of WWII history and I am very interested in all professional audio subjects as it's my chosen career. Crypto falls under my gaze only when related to WWII. Other than that, my editing efforts regarding musicians, films, silent films, 78rpm records, architecture, San Francisco Bay Area locations, cruise ships–ocean liners and tango music don't seem to intersect at all with your world. There are 2,322 articles on my watchlist; the chance that we run into each other is high, especially after it's established that we each like to contribute in not one, but two, common general subjects.
- That said, your accusation that I am wikistalking is false. I definitely don't go to your contribs list to see what you've been up to; that's not my concern. I don't follow you around and try to interfere with your edits. What does alert me is when you've taken an interest in rewriting an article that is on my watchlist. Here, I make sure to set aside enough time to carefully analyze what you've added in plain sight and what conscious or unconscious biases or errors you've introduced in the process. In the past, a few of your additions and copyedits have included assumptions about subwoofers or loudspeakers that come across as universal, though they may not be at all. For instance, in late March 2008, you wrote that one of the primary purposes of a subwoofer enclosure is to increase its efficiency so that a smaller amplifier can be used. Personally, I would have said that one target enclosure design goal would be along that continuum, but that other concerns could easily come to the fore, such as trying to achieve maximum output power or lower the low-frequency extension or lower the amount of distortion. Any of these can be (and have been) design goals to the detriment of efficiency. It's little word choices like this, showing a limited viewpoint, which I keep an eye out for. Others do, too; it was actually User:Noodle snacks who followed up and re-edited the example I just mentioned so that it was less black and white.
- Your recent Loudspeaker edit mentioning the inverse relationship of woofer size and distortion at low frequencies made this assumption: Size affects radiation patterns so that large drivers are usually unacceptable, while larger sizes are required for low distortion low frequency output (smaller drivers require proportionally larger cone excursion, which increases distortion in several ways). Okay, I had two problems with this sentence. Large drivers are unacceptable for what purposes and under what conditions? How does size affect radiation pattern? A little explanation would go a long way to help the reader understand what is intended. Then there's the part about smaller drivers and larger excursion... Though true for single small drivers trying to do the work of larger ones, the statement is patently untrue if large numbers of smaller drivers are employed in one enclosure. And, as you note, there exist some rare driver designs that are optimized for low distortion at higher excursion. I took the whole sentence out because it was that much flawed.
- You know, the topic of distortion coming from extremes of voice coil excursion deserves its own section so that the various issues and counterbalancing forces can be discussed and explained. You appear to be hip to the nuances... Be bold! Binksternet (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Another example of why I take a careful look at your editing work is this addition on June 13 to the article about loudspeaker enclosures: "While simultaneously, and incidentally, addressing issues higher in the audible frequency range such as diffraction from enclosure edges, the baffle step effect when wavelengths approach enclosure dimensions, crossovers, and driver blending." This sentence is 100% confusing. It has no subject! Its iterative clauses offer only obfuscation, yet the edit summary you provided says "clarity".
- The "eg" and "ie" issue is one User:Dicklyon has also harped about on your Talk page. I agree with him. The Wikipedia manual of style recommends using two periods. See WP:ABB Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm... It was a joke....
- Your point about unclarity is correct in some instances, which I noted in my comment.
- Your suggestion that lots of small drivers can have lower excursion an so lower distortion is certainly correct, but it is the acoustic equivalent of using a larger driver, and the reason for the lower distortion is essentially that excursion is reduced. As for the issue of distortion occurring only (or perhaps significantly) at extremes of excursion in a given driver, Zaph (in Wisonsin?) has conducted extensive tests of many drivers from assorted makers and it does not appear to be experimentally verifiable. Zippel (in Germany) has analyzed the subject in considerable depth ans has developed some analytical techniques for exploring the issue. He also reports experimental verification for the distortion outside the extreme excursion regime. Although one of the drivers he analyzed seems to have an asymmetric assembly problem (glued wrong, perhaps). So I have to disagree with your excision of the these observations in the articles we've been editing, though perhaps not with your understanding of the issue. You are correct that, if it cannot be included in existing articles, of which I am still not convinced, there should be a separate article dealing with the issue.
- The difficulty of writing for a general, non-technically informed audience, in a general article which will be used as an article of first resort by such readers, and doing so concisely, is not minimal. It occurs in other writing as well (consider most computer technical manuals). Increased clarity is good, but excision of comments from knowledgeable editors shouldn't be a first resort.
- As for the "ie, eg" issue, opinion differs amongst language stylists and, rather like English spelling, there is a bit of anarchy in such matters. If WP takes a strict prescriptive (rather than descriptive) position (or has), than it has -- in my view shamefully -- joined the Miss Fidditches of the world. Kind of like the difference between fans of Webster's 2nd Unabridged vs fans of the 3rd. ww (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- The "eg" and "ie" issue is one User:Dicklyon has also harped about on your Talk page. I agree with him. The Wikipedia manual of style recommends using two periods. See WP:ABB Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- The joking tone comes across much better in person. o_O
- You and I are certainly working with the same goals in mind. We both want an article to be comprehensive and thorough. I'm sure we'll be able to achieve these goals here. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Edit conflict
I'm getting too woozy to sort out whether your edits or mine make more sense here, but we were having an edit conflict in the one section. Having other open edits to backup to, I cede the matter to you, but note I probably undid most or all of your changes in that "cable names" section. Sorry, but don't see well enough right now to reconstruct, and my version was good enough once I fixed my own "counts error" in table. Glad to see someone is tending the "store". Good luck! // FrankB 05:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- I took this to Talk:Power cable. See you there... Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank You!
The TomStar81 Spelling Award | ||
Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that Binksternet has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page USS Missouri (BB-63), and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC) |
Three revert warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Okinawa. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Phase Linear
I have added the "Official Phase Linear web page" link back in to the reference section after I saw that you had removed it. Please reconsider. Dean has more information and history about Phase Linear than almost anybody. Dean and I were two of the last people to close the doors in Lynnwood. His site is much more informational than "commercial". Much more so than the other site in the references section. Thanks for your consideration. Bradl54 (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
DYK
Rudget (logs) 09:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I enjoyed your Yucca Flat article and thought you might be interested to know it is one of the most viewed DYK articles in July. See stats at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cbl62/sandbox3 . Good article and nice hook. Cbl62 (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)