Hi,

Can you answer this question about hyphens in ISBN numbers, please? Andy Mabbett 22:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello there. I tried to apply this application to my wiki browser, but after editing it in my User:Kawaputra/monobook.css it kind of worked except that the tabs ("user page", "discussion", "edit this page", "history", etc.) seem to disappeared and no where to be found. which seems fatal. i copied followed the instructions in http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:User_style/floating_quickbar. except that i did not turn off the logo (i dont know how to do this). Any idea what went wrong? kawaputra ^tok2me 08:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

BTW, im using Mozilla Firefox v.1.0.7 kawaputra ^tok2me 08:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you install both the CSS and javascript? The javascript changes the article tabs (edit,history,etc.) so that they scroll with the page instead of being attached to the sidebar and hidden underneath the article. (In a pinch, use the keyboard shortcuts like Alt+E to edit and get back to the normal configuration.)

I added the logo removal code directly to the CSS. — Omegatron 13:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

OK. It works perfectly now. Thanks! :) kawaputra ^tok2me 03:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

You're quite right - I'd never though of it like that. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 14:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

We should really have a template for things like that, though; where you want to show an example of a program's output or the like. It should be a blockquote inside a box of some type, I think. — Omegatron 14:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Regarding Talk:Binary prefix#History

I put a {fact} on the 360/30 core memory addition to the chronology since this appears to me to be a current (2007) description and not how this memory plane was described in 1964 or whenever it was sold by IBM. Shouldn't we be careful to assure that all our quotes are time period appropriate?

On a broader subject, isn't the issue really when did the OS's start using prefixes in a Binary Sense? Most of what we have in the chronology so far is evidence that there is no reason to use prefixes in a binary sense since these examples of main storage were not binary in nature.

Yr thoughts? Tom94022 16:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply

My goal is just to figure out the usage and meaning of the various terms over time in as factual and neutral a manner as possible. Software, marketing literature, scientific papers, etc. The earliest uses of "kilobit" (which probably predates "kilobyte", since "bit" predates "byte") I could find on Google Scholar are just as ambiguous as modern usage; one refers to a memory device which is binary in nature, and one refers to a data rate which is decimal in nature. — Omegatron 20:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply

My goal also, but I would state it as figuring out the common usage over time to describe main storage in the computer industry. In other technologies it's mainly all SI and where it isn't, the conversion likely occurred much later than in main storage. It's pretty clear today, that when you see M or G with regard to main storage they are binary. The question is when did this become common? We may never find a day but we should be able to locate a decade. We got started on this when I objected to the assertion it started in the 50's and 60's - so far, the evidence points to the 70's or 80's.

Do we agree that it has to be clear what is the date of the reference? For example, u still have posted the 1964 reference to the S/360M30 core plane, but to me it appears that the language is a current description of a 1964 artifact.

Do we agree that what we are looking for are sizes of main storage described with the unqualified use of k, K or M as a prefix to bit or byte where the preceding decimal number is a natural binary number greater than 16 (rounding makes 1,2,4,8 and 16 ambiguous) AND there is additional evidence that the actual size is a natural binary number, i.e., 2ⁿ

One last thought, is this original research that is inappropriate for Wikipedia? Tom94022 16:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply

So from what I can tell, they were originally just explicit; saying things like "1024 words" and "60,000 characters". Binary computers tended to have power of two storage, both in electrostatic/core memory and drum memory? Decimal computers tended to have decimal-based storage.

Then they started using the "K" notation, like "60K" to mean 60,000. It was used decimally, as evidenced by the use of "65K" to signify 65,536, which rounds to 65 with two significant digits, but which we would normally call "64K". The K stood for "thousands of words", though, not bits or bytes, since words were 36 bits or so.

Then I bet "KB" evolved after they settled on 8-bit bytes? I'm going to add a bunch of stuff I've written down to the timeline. — Omegatron 23:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply

On a related topic, your graphical additions to the Binary Prefix article are great! FWIW, I really haven't found much usage of binary SI prefixes in OS's prior to MacOS. When I have time I will add such to the timeline. Tom94022 17:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

A screenshot of an old MacOS showing binary prefixes would be good, too. — Omegatron 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

how about this? Image:Apple_Macintosh_Desktop.png

My problem is I think but cannot prove that the K is in binary sense. I thought the first Mac FDD's (same as Lisa 2) had a 400 KiB capacity based upon the unformatted 500 kB capacity of the Sony SSDD 3.5" FD. Tom94022 21:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

That's good, but we need a reference for what the K means. I'm sure there's documentation for the OS floating around. — Omegatron 23:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I just noticed this: {{ ISBN-13}} - Andy Mabbett 01:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

It just "calls" the regular ISBN function? — Omegatron 01:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi: Just in case my recent edit in the Binary Prefix JEDEC Talk got lost in the blizzard of commentary I have reproduced it below.

If I agree? Wha? What do I have to do with this? — Omegatron 17:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Omegatron added the JEDEC section on 7 April. On 12 April Sli flagged it as POV; to which I agreed. Sli has already given his permission to remove the POV. I'm not sure exactly how Wikipedia would want us to adjudicate this issue, but I think if Omegatron agrees to my proposed changes (or something similar) then we can move on.Tom94022 16:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for the edit on image width, I didn't realize it was set in my preferences. Tom94022 16:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh. I guess I did technically add it. I was just moving it out of mebibyte, though. I figured binary prefix was a more general discussion and a better place for it. I agree that it would be better as a subsection of the computer memory section. — Omegatron 16:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your efforts regarding the technology in question. You have broken the list down very nicely into concrete claims, and reasonable aspects of the technology, while showing the BS that many people purport. My opinion is that any claim about extraordinary properties is complete BS; the technology is a fuel enhancer, nothing more, nothing less. Noah Seidman 07:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Good.

• My hunch is that the claims about extraordinary properties are BS, but, as a skeptic and scientist, my official opinion is that I don't have enough detailed knowledge about chemistry or molecular physics to truly know, so I am reserving judgement. It sounds like BS, though; it definitely has that vibe.
• My opinion on the fuel enhancing properties is also undetermined. It seems reasonable that an injection of some type (especially something explosive) could increase fuel efficiency. However, if it really worked, with no ill side effects, everyone would be using it. Every auto company would jump on it immediately if it improved their gas mileage even a little bit with such a simple device, so I strongly doubt that it's actually useful for that purpose. Maybe, like water, it increases the efficiency, but harms the engine in the process. Maybe it's also just BS.
• Ultimately, my belief is that HTA sells gas generators for welding equipment. They use their claims of "special gas properties" to get an edge above their oxyhydrogen-producing competitors, [1] [2] and use the water-fueled car myth to generate publicity for their company. I think that's all there is to it. — Omegatron 15:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply

A reasonable analysis. I agree on all points, and understand your point of view. Noah Seidman 16:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply

With all due respect, we're trying to finally get this resolved. Putting in a large paragraph of pure sarcasm doesn't solve a single thing. It's editing to make a WP:POINT. It's disruptive. It's intentionally non-constructive. If you aren't capable of maturely discussing things with people you happen to disagree with, then I'd respectfully request that you refrain from commenting at all. Disruption isn't going to solve anything, and, for the life of me, I don't know how you thought it was going to. Bladestorm 17:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm being disruptive? Non-constructive?? Look at that talk page. Hundreds of KB KiB kB of argument over something we've already decided and formulated into a guideline to prevent endless argument. Everything's already been said. Over and over and over and over and over again. And over and over and over and over. There is nothing to be "resolved" except for people to stop being disruptive and accept consensus.

And sarcasm isn't prohibited. Incivility is. — Omegatron 19:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

You are moderating the HHO article extremely well. Is there anything I can do to help? I will not make any direct posts because they will be immediately attacked. I have 2 (1200 liter per hour) generators available, for demonstration of the torch applications, if anyone wants to come to NYC. Can we bring in the history of the gas, its origions with Yull Brown, and William Rhodes? If so, obviously there are a slew of company involved. Take a peek at my Industry page, it has a list of dozens of companies. The Industry. Noah Seidman 17:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Also, I think you understand this already, in no way can this gas be used to completely substitute a carbon based fuel. It is simply not viable, except in torch application. Noah Seidman 17:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I will not make any direct posts because they will be immediately attacked.

Yeah...

its origions with Yull Brown, and William Rhodes

I wasn't aware there was any connection. The HHO gas article is just about HHO gas, not gas welding in general.

Also, I think you understand this already, in no way can this gas be used to completely substitute a carbon based fuel. It is simply not viable, except in torch application.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. — Omegatron 19:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Considering that electrolysis, on average, is 80% efficient it is more conservative to utilize the electricity directly as compared to electrolyzing water and then utilizing the produced gas. Noah Seidman 20:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh. Well of course. It will always be more efficient to run an electric motor directly off batteries than to put other energy conversion processes in between. — Omegatron 20:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

As a fuel enhancer it is viable for the same reason catalysts are utilized in chemistry; to reduce the activation energy. Noah Seidman 20:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

But does it actually increase efficiency? If so, is the cost of generating the oxyhydrogen lower than the cost of the gasoline saved? If so, does the injection have any harmful side effects on the engine that reduce the overall benefit? Internal combustion engines are only 20% efficient, so there's lots of room for improvement, but I'm not convinced that this is one of them. — Omegatron 20:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

A decrease in activation energy is equivalent to an overall increase in efficiency. You can take a peek at my propane enhancement research data if you'd like. I've tried to get it published to no avail, but its quality research Data. I would argue that the cost of generating the gas is less than the cost of the gas saved, which is supported by my research data, but this is not the point of the technology. Independent of whether there is cost savings, increasing efficiency, is increasing efficiency. The main effect of the gas, when added to gasoline, is elimination of carbon monoxide, a slight increase in carbon dioxide, elimination of particulate and smog byproducts, and a reduction in NOx emissions. This data is from Get Hydro Power Brown's Gas Enhancement Systems. Noah Seidman 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I have a rhetorical question. Why do you think the gas companies put 10% ethanol in their gasoline? Its a fuel enhancer, allowing the gasoline to achieve cleaner more efficient combustion. How does the cost of the 10% ethanol compare to the cost of the 10% gasoline saved? I think ethanol is more expensive than gasoline at the moment. Noah Seidman 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

A picture of my propane fuel research before and after enhancement Image. Noah Seidman 22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Of course your research can't be used as a source. I'm sure there's peer-reviewed research about hydrogen injection of gasoline, though.

The efficiency --> lower pollution relationship is a very good point. — Omegatron 22:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Just a quick clarification that most websites do not specify. Just adding any of the hydrogen gases (oxyhydrogen, pure hydrogen, Brown's Gas/HHO) to the gasoline does not increase gas mileage; it "ONLY" increases combustion efficiency. Gas mileage improvement is the direct result of re-flashing the ECU fuel maps, so the injectors actually inject less fuel into the cylinders. This is how the "GOOD" companies are able to guarantee gas mileage improvement. If the injectors are injecting 10% less fuel at any RPM, that is equivalent to a 10% increase in gas mileage. Noah Seidman 23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I think this is right; 10% less fuel injected is a 20% increase in gas mileage. I was thinking about this because 50% less fuel injected is a 100% increase in gas mileage. What do you think, is this right? The interesting thing is that automotive systems can tune for a particular %'age reduction in fuel injected, and then generate a quantity of gas that will prevent a lean condition from emerging by installing a temporary pyrometer. To avoid tapping the engine block, a baseline for the exhaust gas temperature at the tailpipe can be measured, and then hydrogen fuel can be added until the temperature of the exhaust gas, after adjusting the air/fuel mixture, reaches baseline temp. Noah Seidman 04:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Another popular misconception is regarding a "lean" condition. Because hydrogen has such a high flame velocity, the combination of the hydrogen fuel introduction and the reduction of gasoline injected into the cylindars results in the avoidance of a "lean" condition. 1 step at a time it breaks down like this: Injecting less fuel into the cylindars will result in a lean condition, but because of the introduction of the hydrogen fuel, and the associated increase in overall flame velocity, the exhaust gas temperature is actually less than if not equivalent to the normal air/fuel mixture installed by the factory. Heres an image from HTA of exhaust valves before and after fuel enhancement. HTA Exhaust Valve Pictures. Noah Seidman 23:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I made a different version of this image. Would it be ok with you if I replaced yours? — Omegatron 00:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

No problem. Yours is much nicer. The Photon 04:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok. — Omegatron 15:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, Omegatron. I've used a png image of yours as the basis for an svg version of the same subject. How would you like to be attributed? As Omegatron? With a link to your User page? Thanks. - RCS ^talk 03:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

That's fine, yes.  :-) Which image? — Omegatron 03:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Just Image:Resistor_symbol.png at the moment. Nothing too amazing. :-) - RCS ^talk 07:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh. I don't think something like that can be copyrighted anyway. You could release it under whatever license you want, and don't need to attribute me.

A lot of schematic symbols already exist; see commons:Category:Electrical_symbols, especially commons:Category:Resistor symbols.

We're also trying to create a standard set of symbols to use for drawing schematics in Inkscape. See commons:Image:Electrical symbols library.svg and commons:Category:Created with electrical symbols library. Maybe you could help us draw more symbols for that? — Omegatron 14:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Your call for a disambiguation page for Muse has been answered by User:Ajuk's move of Muse to Muse (Greek mythology). I posted the following note; perhaps you'd pitch in too:

"Now that you have created the dozens of redirects for Muse links that intend Muse (Greek mythology), you might help rectify this disservice to the Wikipedia reader and the trouble caused for other Wikipedians by helping revise the double redirects that you have created. You will find them at Muse by selecting "What links here" in the left-hand table. This is part-and-parcel of a page title move. I have also posted this note at Talk:Muse (Greek mythology). Thank you." ...and thank you, Omegatron. -- Wetman 18:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The page was protected because it has been " subject to vandalism which had severe legal consequences." You can read about this at Taner Akçam#Persecution and Talk:Taner Akçam#Arrest in Canada. I'm assuming DragonflySixtyseven did this on request by Mr. Akçam himself via OTRS. Is there any chance you can reconsider? Khoi khoi 18:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm aware of the incident, but I don't think the reason given is sufficient to protect the article. The vandalism occurred four months ago. If it's from OTRS, it should be re-protected with that cited as the reason. — Omegatron 18:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Just been looking over this COingS thingy (or letters to that effect) that you were going to try to add to {{ Ref patent}}. Looked good and I think you had it right. If you don't think it's worth carrying on when the template isn't used much, I won't mind. But it's a pretty new template so hasn't sunk into Wikipedia consciousness yet! GDallimore ( Talk) 22:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply

No I'm going to put it back in; just need to make each field optional, like the one in Cite Book. We should probably merge that with {{ US patent application}}, though. — Omegatron 22:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure. The USPTO and espacenet databases have quite a few differences so merging could easily end up being messy. GDallimore ( Talk) 23:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Awhile ago you tried to nominate I-mate SP5m to be renamed. I've officially started a vote, so I welcome your vote on Talk:I-mate SP5m. -- Bovineone 08:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I was wondering if you'd obtained any result in producing an export that is compatible with wikipedia templates? I'm relatively experienced (with fitting references in templates, that is), so I can try to help if you want me to. Circeus 20:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply

No, but I'd love to help. I ended up spending my time putting COinS tags in our citation templates instead, which is kind of in the opposite direction. But it would be very convenient if Zotero generated ref tags. Did you see the thread on the zotero forums from a while ago? — Omegatron 20:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I saw it, and it's what prompted me to ask you about it. I do think you forgot to add COinS tags to {{ cite encyclopedia}}, though. Circeus 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I just did book and journal for now. I want to look around for complaints or praise before going further. Most people don't even seem to notice it, though. — Omegatron 21:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I suspect if word got around that Zotero can export in Wiki-format, it would create more use of it in the community, and hence, more demand for use of zotero-comaptible templates. Circeus 22:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, definitely.

Ok, so I keep staring at [3] and [4] and [5] and [6] and I can't figure out where to start. Do you know?

I did add COinS to the bottom of the "Cite this article" page, though.  :-) See this, for example. — Omegatron 01:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

They already added it to the new beta! [7] You can currently export citations to a text file with citation templates, and in the next version you should be able to copy and paste them directly. — Omegatron 15:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, many fixes are needed (for example, the dates in cite journal show up as 1984-11, and it ignores the presence of a URL), but it's certainly a good start we can build upon. Circeus 19:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Yep. And there are fields missing and patents should be {{ US patent reference}} instead of {{ cite}}, and so on. I think we could either ask for trac logins or just start a new thread in the forums to report all our bugs in. — Omegatron 21:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I just started a thread on the dev mailing list. — Omegatron 14:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply