User talk:Constant314/Archive 2

About Steinmetz’s Equation II

As you said, Steinmetz’s Equation is an empirical one. In this sense, for the first time in literature, its well-known and widely-used version in time domain (instantaneous power equation p(t)=v(t).i(t) for harmonic or non-harmonic sources) is theoretically extracted by us (for the first time in literature). Therefore, it is directly related to Steinmetz’s Equation and power theory. In fact, our contribution makes a good theoretical base (relying on Maxwell’s equation) for Steinmetz’s Equation. In this sense, it cannot be simply neglected. It must be mentioned. Saksoy14 (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You need to review Wikipedia's policies on self-promotion. See WP:COI.

If you wish to continue this conversation, please do so on Talk:Steinmetz's equation.

About Steinmetz’s Equation I

Why did you delete my contribution about p(t)=v(t)*i(t) without any explanatios? --Saksoy14 (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for contacting me. The content that you added regarding Poynting vector to Steinmetz's equation was reverted because it was only vaguely related to Steinmetz's equation which is a non-linear, empirical equation for estimating power loss in certain magnetic materials. While, when a transformer is in use, there must be a PV, in practice it is intractable to compute. Similarly, V x I is not useful because V x I computes the total power whereas Steinmetz's equation tells you the portion of the power going into magnetic loss. Finally, the fact that Balci et al state that they precisely derive in 2021 a result well known for over a century isn’t interesting.

A couple of points about Wikipedia etiquette:

• I did leave an explanation. It might have been terse. Saying that I left you no explanation is like saying that I am rude. Some editors will take offense at that. On the other hand, there is no harm in asking for further explanation.
• When you add a new section to a talk page, it should always go at the bottom. If you use the “new section” tab at the top of the page, it will automatically place the new section at the bottom.

Feel free to contact me if you have questions. Constant314 (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Photon particles and laser beam structure

This gif anim shows how builds up laser beam by photon particles and how stabilized the laser "crystal" by intrinsic electric forces. I would like to explain for you what you see and perhaps you can help to make it more understandable.

The photon is a particle, an energy quantum consist by four fundamental particles: two (mirror)graviton energy particles and two (mirror)electric charge energy particles. The graviton pair alone cause the gravitational phenomena, pushing gravity. Its a speedy, perpetuum mobile particle, travels in a DNA like trajectory. When this pair bind two (mirror) electric charge fundamental particles so the photon emerged.

The cross section of moving photon particle shows yin yang symbol. So this anim not a rotating yin yang symbol but contrary, the ancient yin yang symbolize the nature most importance ingredient, the photon.

The laser beam stabilized by this intrinsic electric forces because if we label the distance between adjacent photons with d in the crystalline grid, so distance between the same neighboring charges are always d, while the distance between opposite charges is always smaller than d.

The https://astrojan.eu5.org/phot3.gif picture shows how arise photon periodically changing properties, once electric and after a quarter of wavelength magnetic nature from the internal structure of a photon.

https://astrojan.eu5.org/images/phopani.gif

where the vertical line position of the four ingredient correspond to electric property and the square position shows the magnetic property of photon perpendicularly to former one.

I think no other model can explain how functionate the photon.

Perhaps not incidental that Corean wiki site incorporated the laser anim picture.

Please help me how I can make more understandable and clearer illustration of particle model of photon.

Astrojan (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This is fringe science WP:FRINGE. It is not suitable for inclusion in the Electromagnetic radiation article. Constant314 (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the page move (PCB)

I see, and sorry I had no idea regarding it. the addition of "PCB" to the title is justified IMO. But ok, I see it was revered. Thanks for pointing out. SunnyG81 (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. We expect new editors to make mistakes. Before you do anything big to a page, it is good to talk about it. Moving (renaming) a page is a big deal. Constant314 (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, and would have to disagree. My page moves were justified and made in good faith for the best interest of our readers. But OK, I can definitely accept a page move may have more serious implications, i.e double redirects, etc that may require alot of manual work. accepted. However, it seems you are reverting my other changes as well. And for absolutely no reason. The article I recited is from a very reputable source, it has a references section reciting industry leaders. The author has been a lecturer in several courses in the university and has been established hands-on experience since 2004. He is also a recognized expert on circuitnet. I would challenge you to find even a single error in the article. even one. And lastly, look at my content. And the comparing with existing paragraph. Do you really think the previous content is better? How many electronic circuits have you designed to disclaim my content with such ease? The content is accurate as well as the sources, and the intention is honest. I'm an established myself in the field of electronics and people like me help make wikipedia better. I had seen and fixed many times before incorrect content on WP, I focus on good content, and don't have my hand easy on the button reverting other people contents. CF WP:ROWN, and try to be more open to other people, wikipedia makes small increments on improvement due to people like us. If the content is good, please be open to other's expertise and remember wikipedia belongs to all of us and all (or at least most) of us have good will and good intentions. Best wishes to you. SunnyG81 (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@SunnyG81:Hi, regarding the moves, you are welcome to propose that on the talk page of the relevant articles. You may even convince me. If you do eventually move a page, take a look at Wikipedia:Moving a page. There is a lot of cleanup work, that as mover, you are expected to do. That is one reason that long duration pages are not often moved. Also, when you move a page, all the hyperlinks become hyperlinks to redirects. The community frowns upon that and has spent a lot of effort converting hyperlinks to redirects into direct hyperlinks. When you move a page you negate a lot of work by many editors. It is not something to do without discussion and consensus. Also, when you move an article, the new name needs to comply with Wikipedia:Article titles. If you do not get this right, somebody else will have to move it again.

You did make some good changes and I do not doubt your good intentions, however when there were too many disputes to address individually, it is better to start over from a known good version. If you would like to reinsert those edits, it is better to do them a few at a time and let other editors have a chance to respond to them. We do encourage editors to edit boldly, but that also means we encourage editors to revert boldly. Don't take it as an affront, take it as an invitation for discussion. Sometimes, it takes a lot of discussion. That is part of the process. Let's discuss specific changes on the talk pages of the specific articles.

Regarding using a blog as a reference, we prefer reliable secondary sources. Blogs are primary sources. We don't like experts, because sometimes experts lie and sometimes they inflate their credentials. Wikipedia was burned badly sometime ago by over-reliance on experts. It does happen, but poor practice in one article doesn't justify poor practice in other articles (WP:Other). If the content you added is accurate, you should be able to find good secondary or tertiary references. There are many reliable trade journals that would be potential sources. For example, in the article on Vias, you added "The via is the number one priority of the PCB manufacturer". That is clearly one person's opinion. There are still a huge number of single sided PCBs being manufactured that don't have any vias. The expert that you quoted probably knows that, but did not have the time or space to properly qualify his remarks. That is one of the problem with blogs, course notes and other user generated content (WP:UGC). But that is something to discuss on the talk page of that article.

Wikipedia is a community and culture with many written and unwritten rules. It can be frustrating. I get frustrated. Some days I get so frustrated that I decide to leave and never come back. Let me leave you with these thoughts:

1. Please don't move any page without a lot of discussion and consensus. On a page with few active watchers, it can take a long time to get the discussion going. There is no hurry.

2. When you are reverted, please don't be offended, just open a discussion.

Constant314 (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Once again agree with you on the page moves. And since I'm very busy I cannot undertake such responsibility so I have to waive that. I do think this keeps the content stuck / non-organized, I just recall seeing duplicate pages and non-useful content at the wrong place. I believe I have done good work when moving, but did not properly cleaned up so this is perfectly understandable.

Regarding "The via is the number one priority of the PCB manufacturer", I truely belive this so this why I added this. The argument for 1 layer board is irrelevant as 1L is very easy to make, the problem starts with complex multilayer boards. For example, we have a problem now with a board that is almot 90day stuck at the manufacturer!! it is only 8 layer board, and the manufacturer, italian and really good one, has done this PCB before. He's primary complaint: the vias, too many vias from differnt layers require multiple lamination stages, multiple drilling and multiple plating stages! each lamination and drill has it's tolerances. and sometimes you can't plate if one side of the via is plugged up (see for example the microvia aspect ratio, this is a well known fact that the laser drill is not the issue, the plating becomes difficult). In short, while we can't agree on everything at least I can tell that I 100% back this statement. A PCB without vias would not require tight registration tolerances, would not require multiple laminations nor multiple plating. The via is also the reason every complex boards needs to pay upfront 'tooling', the manufacturer needs to learn and adapt the gerbers and drills.

Unfortunately, I can't easily find second references for this, because our world is not always built on sharing information. But its something I learned over the years as a user.

And, I would not call a 6000-word article a blog post or user content. This article is based on nationally accepted IPC standards and has a reference section. I believe these expert article eventually enhance wikipedia. I would refrain from making edits from wikipedia when I see users reverting my posts like this, like 5-6 reverts a day. While keeping nonsense and inaccurate stuff, or even non explanatory terms such as the ones you have now on your page. not for me.

SunnyG81 (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I wish I could reorganize Wikipedia. Or better yet, organize it in the first place. But Wikipedia has become middle aged and resistant to change. It is what is.

The discussion about the PCB article should be on its talk page so that other editors can join in.

The problem with putting in stuff that we truly believe is sometimes it is wrong. The discipline of finding a reliable source helps avoiding those errors. It is better to leave something out for lack of a reliable source can to put in something erroneous.

As for what is on my page, that is work in progress and not part of Wikipedia.

Constant314 (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Constant314:

I can understand your concern. And appreciate your voluntary work towards wikipedia. I can confirm the source is accurate, and based on up to date technologies and accepted IPC standards. I think a source should be judged on it own, and I presume you might not be deeply technical in this art in order to judge a source based on it's content. I also think this is part of the problem, seemingly almost automatic revertion based on a misunderstanding of factual and up to date data. But ok, let's leave this and approach a resolution.

BTW I must say, blog posts by industry leaders are considered one of todays best sources of information. This is because in the world of PCBs the IPC standards are not freely published, each document costs hundred of dollars and there are numerous standards you need to be aware of. I also agree that not every blog post is legit however I suggest to judge based on content and not based on the magazzine / university publication etc. For me, I cringe when I read sentences on the PCB page like "These holes are called micro vias and can have diameters as small as 10 micrometers" and "When vias with a diameter smaller than 76.2 micrometers are required, drilling with mechanical bits is impossible" - as one living in the PCB world for almost 20 years I understand this is falsified junk. the smallest accepted mechanical drill is 150um and not 76um. and not one PCB company on earth will make a 10um laser drill. But still, it's on a magazzine. Sometimes free, sometimes the content payed to be on a maggazzine IMO. This is why I think expert advise is important and that content should be judged based on content.

I'm going to revert the change in 'printed circuit board' and move the discussion to the talk page (the page moves will not be reverted). And let other people scrutinize the article based on their knowledge as well.

regarding Via (electronics), I will not revert but will better write why PCB via is such of profound importance in PCB design, hopefully this will offset something that at a first glance may look as an opinion into more factual, evidence-based data.

hope this could lead to an agreement in good faith and mutual understanding.

Have a nice weekend and once again appreciate your endeavor SunnyG81 (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Re on "Please also check our electronic design services page". I hope you can find it reasonable that within a 6000-word article, a 3-word would really not constitute as a promotion. The entire article is completely done for the community with nothing but good intentions. best wishes SunnyG81 (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I prefer to keep this conversation on Talk:Printed circuit board.Constant314 (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Sir, I just want to deeply apologize for any misconduct I may have expressed during my first comment. I don't know about the future if I remain a wikipedian, alter the account name or start over. More important than PCBs are good manners. Anyway, best wishes and thank you for keeping at least some of my text it makes me feel at least proud of a small acheivement. SunnyG81 (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like you had a rough entry into Wikipedia. You jumped in before anybody got around to greeting you and helping you get oriented. I apologize for all of Wikipedia for that. I would personally prefer that you stick around. Before you do anything drastic like closing your account or opening a new one (really, don't do that), you need more help than I can give. We understand that new editors make mistakes and yours are well intentioned. You need help from an experienced administrator. See Template:Admin help. Open a new section on your talk page. Give an appropriate title line "Need editor needs help", Explain your situation. It is not clear to me but it looks like you committed conflict of interest violations. Just be up front and explain that you want to fix it. Then at the beginning of the section insert {{Admin help}}. You should be contacted by an administrator. Do this sooner instead of later. Constant314 (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Let me leave you with this thought. Even if everything you wrote gets reverted or revised, you still have made a contribution. You induced someone else to look at that article and make a judgment about the content. You provoked a discussion about reliable sources that someone else will read and perhaps understand. Constant314 (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Constant314, thank you very much, I highly appreciate your help. Yes, last couple of days were really rough, I learned the hard way and probably was naive - but understand much better now the rules and guidelines of wikipedia. I am actually somewhat expecting to get punished and I would be ok with that, perhaps even feel better. Actually, I was contemplating if to open the account by my real name few months back and saw a warning about potential risks so I decided not to do so (however, Sunny or sun in hebrew is shemesh, just anactotal..). Now understanding that I'm a COI case and also self published I'm not so sure that I would qualify for inclusion as a wikipedia source.

Also, thank you for your tip and it helps me see things as if through different eyeglasses, you mentioned that I'm also promotional, but I did not got the chance to tell you that search engines actually require internal linking within a website. Before I clearly inserted the link from my home page to the via page, the via page did not even get indexed, i.e search engines did not want to waste resources on storing information about it on thier servers. The same goes the other way (via->home) and interestingly navigational links at the top/bottom of the page are actually ignored. There is a full theory behind this and perhaps off subject.

Also I wanted to say, another anacdotal, the sentence "The via is the number one priority of the PCB manufacturer" is actually not mine. About 15 years ago I needed to layout a board that was clearly above my capabilities back then, and I met by chance in an electronics show a very experienced engineer from ECI Telcom that was doing complex commincation PCBs all his carrer, and asked him if he could give me paid private lessons to learn PCB design. Furtunately for me, they agreed (he and ECI) and I was invited to thier offices to learn. I think it was 20hours or so but they only charged me for 10! It still resonate to me by this day, one of the first things he told me is this exact sentence. Agreeably, quite subtle very hard to defend opinion sentence, I can clearly understand why this could draw fire and perhaps better omitted. Nevertheless, I learned over the years just how remarkably correct this sentence has proved on multiple occasions.

Lastly, I'd like to point out that I, as a self-published source, still sign on my web page with my real name. This is why I absolutely HAVE to make sure I made any possible effort to maintain correct information. Can it be 100% verified just by looking at my cited sources? maybe 90% could, at best, but would require detective work. On the other hand, online magazines who profit by showing ads, many times accept articles for free and the rest of the cases - for a small fee. This provided that you prepared for them the article text/pics and have some sort of story going on. They just edit it into their webpage. So the question of verifiability and true reliable source is quite deep I believe and think current guidelines miss out and some exercise of personal judgment by the community is appropriate.

Anyway, thank you for your patience and understanding in the situation and also for reaching out to help. Contacting an admin is a great tip, I will need to think about it, I need to resolve the COI issue as you mentioned and see if I can make less promotional the page (the idea of reopening an account, was for specifying the real name, but if it can be prevented, all the better). best wishes! SunnyG81 (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. If you want to stay on Wikipedia, it is important to get ahead of your error. Typically, we give editors three warnings, but editors using Wikipedia for promotional purposes are often blocked with fewer warnings. If there are still any instances of references to your web-site, you may want to remove those as soon as possible. Since it is obvious to me that the problem won’t occur, I certainly won’t report you and I doubt that User talk:MrOllie will do so either. But there are editors who act as the Wikipedia police that do look for people to report. That is why I would urge you to get admin help now.

Regarding your commercial web-site, I did not see anything that I would object to. If you published that same information as an article in a respected trade journal, then it could be cited in Wikipedia by anyone other than you. But that would mean that at least the editorial staff of the journal looked at and if it is one of the better journals, they got it peer reviewed. A long time ago, I wrote an article for the now defunct PCB Magazine. The reviewer requested several changes before they published the article. The more eyes that look at, the better the product.

Regarding “The via is the number one priority of the PCB manufacturer”, that is an opinion. If IPC surveyed 1000 PCB manufacturers and 53% agreed that vias were their number one priority, then it would have some legitimate claim to being a fact. I think that if you asked a large number of manufacturers, then you would find other things as being a higher priority. I think probably before they worry about vias, the first thing they do is determine whether they can handle the job. Do the have the materials? Can they work with the requested materials? Will the overall dimensions fit within the current process? Will they have to buy something to handle this job? What is the thinnest trace and the smallest gap? I am sure that you can think of a number of things that they might check before they ever got around to looking at the vias. They might even ask, “will this customer pay me?”

And then “number one priority,” doesn’t really mean anything. It is too vague. Literally, it is the sort of thing that is written on promotional materials. To make it less vague, you might say something like “According to an IPC survey, manufactures expend more man-hours on checking via registration than on any other step.” Now, it says something objective and verifiable.

By the way, your web-site is considered copyrighted, even if you do not explicitly post a copyright notice. You cannot copy and paste from a copyrighted source without explicit permission. There is a mechanism for that, but, at this point, you could be anybody, and your claim to have the rights isn’t sufficient for Wikipedia. We do not want to be in court defending against copyright infringement, so we are ultra-skeptical.

Constant314 (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Constant, thank you for the detailed response. Agreed, I'll do it right away and contact admin just to clear things up and perhaps receive a penalty if appropriate.

Re promotional purposes, I'm not entirely sure I understood. I have no more sources to my website from wikipedia pages. I had two and both were reverted. I just said that my via page on my website has an internal reference to the main page. But that's entirely on my webpage.

It's great to know about your publication on PCB magazine, and it's great to see they actually reviewed it and even came back with remarks! I think that's rather unusual though, perhaps edn still does it. However I can say that certainly some of these magazines are not like that anymore, again I think that a case by case judgment has to be made. Furthermore, to publish in a magazine means all the traffic goes to the magazine, there, of course, some benefits like establishing authority and possibly getting a reference from the magazine. It is definitely something that I would want to do in the future however but time is also a resource and my via article is still missing critical information that i'd like to add, like a section on microvias, via filling, plugging, and tenting, and possibly adding a FAQ section where readers can also get engaged and send some questions. In addition, I also need to keep my customers happy so it's difficult.

re “The via is the number one priority of the PCB manufacturer”. Agreed it is an opinion and it should be better rephrased. Also, agree that certainly there are other factors as you mentioned, some of them may even be a show stopper (like missing materials or non a paying customer), of course. But I'd call of these zero order issues that need to be addressed. For example, materials. Manufacturer can usually offer the stackup, you can optionally offer your stackup and reference the materials and thicknesses you want, while still being generic. For example, you could ask for a 2116 preperg without specifing the manufacturer. similarily you could ask the entire build will be TG170 or better, and this way you wont lose any manufacturer in the quotation stage. For some special radar boards where specific low loss cores were needed, we understood this is very limiting and could rule out good manufacturers, so my customer bought these materials himself and shipped to the selected manufacturer. Also, track/trace tolerance is really non issue today, you have a specific clearance you need to maintain per given copper thickness. The manufacturer has etch compensation table where he knows how much to compensate for a given thickness. And even if he did some mistake, he has an optical machine for inspecting the etched panels prior to lamination, if any error arise, he thows only a small portion of the build and not the entire lamination.

However, with vias this is not the case. Via has some probability to go off the center of the pad, and you have also lamination and other tolerances down the road. It directly affects the yield and not 100% predicatble. Furthermore, if you have a panel with multiple boards, depending if you allow X-out or not, one faulty board might throw an entire panel.

However, these are only the on-surface reasons. There are more. Vias are directly related to board cost, build time, and manufacturer's effort. If I specify a via-in-pad, the manufacturer needs about 8 additional stages in order to prepare that via. If for example I used an 8L PCB and have 1-4, 5-8 and 1-8 vias, the manufacturer needs to build it as 3 boards, with 3 laminations, 3 platings, 3 drillings. And to engineer a custom list of processes from start to finish. Sometimes you even get manufacturer throw in the towel, in the foldable radar PCB on my website, some excellent manufacturers chose not to quote. There are builds that can go really crazy. And the root cause is the via. How we specify them, the clearances we take, drill sizes, from which layer to which layer - it is exteremly important for the manufacturer to fully understand the gerbers before he can give you a quote and lead time.

But it even doesn't stop here, because the customer and the manufacturer are at a conflict. The customer wants a reliable board with vias surviving thermal cycles, the manufacturer want a reproducible board and sometimes will reduce via diameter (and strength) in favor of clearance. The customer wants good internal planes, the manufacturer wants a reproducible board with greater drill to copper. Surely the manufacturer wants to do a good job. But he is contrained by the build cost and this industry has a low margin.

So, perhaps I even have not phrased the original sentence well. "The via is god!!". That's better (kidding of course...). This is also why I wanted to have a via page and through this lens to explain about PCB design and just how it is important to understand the manufacturing process. Just FYI.

I wasn't thinking about copyright issues at all. For me it sounds reasonable that a one-sentence could be loaned from other website without issues. But I take it that it might not be so simple. Easily this could be resolved, however, by slightly rephrasing. Or by more formal consent mechnism by myself. And again I agree about this is an opinion sentence that could easily be rewritten as more factual. "number one priority" is just for emphasis though, as you understand English is not my mother tongue as many times it is difficult for me to explain whole concepts while keeping it simple. This is why I do like that not everything needs to be explained, certainly not for a beginner wanting to learn what is a via.

OK now I'll go and prepare the admin paragraph, keep you posted (in the case my account survives!).

best wishes SunnyG81 (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Your account will most likely survive, but you may be given a time out. Probably not even that. Good luck.

I think an article on PCBs for radar would be an interesting read. It would be the right sized chunk for EDN. Constant314 (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for you help. It is done by the way and now I'll wait.

Yes the rigid flex radar is very interesting. But by my customer's request, I can't disclose it on another website. The little that is written on my page is approved though.

SunnyG81 (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)