User talk:Circuit dreamer/Archive 1

Archives

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Circuit dreamer/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! — Omegatron 00:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current source need a resistor

I was just checking to see if you were paying attention. In other words, oops. Rsduhamel 23:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Anti_load.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Anti_load.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson current mirror

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Wilson current mirror, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Wilson current source. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you got the above message was because you did not, as you claimed, "move" the article. You copy & pasted it. This destroyed the edit history and made it look as though you were the sole author. There is a "move" tab above every article which you should have used. I have corrected matters. No further action is need. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Roger! I will take into consideration your advices. If you like circuits, you are welcome to the discussion about the true behind the legendary Wilson current mirror that I have just started. Circuit-fantasist (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Negative resistance

I'm not sure what you're doing with Talk:Negative resistance. You've made 465 edits in a row to it, without a single case of intervening dialogue from anyone else. I think the sort of material you are writing there is best placed on one's own web page, not an article talk page. — BillC ^talk 08:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BillC, thank you for your remark but frankly, I can't understand what you want to say to me. My intention is clear - to reconstruct totally the Negative resistance page. Of course, for this purpose, I would like first to discuss my suggestions with Wikipedians concerned in this subject. But I have no idea why nobody joins the discussion (actually, I guess but I wouldn't like to discuss it); I think I'm not responsible for this passiveness. If you want to know, just ask them. IMO, my efforts to reveal the secret of the phenomenon deserve encouragement sooner than reprobation. Regards, Circuit-fantasist (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page you are constructing is unsuitable for publication on Wikipedia, as it relies heavily on your personal opinions and insights (i.e, it is original research), and it is preventing discussion at the talk page. I have moved the content to your user space at User:Circuit-fantasist/Negative resistance. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to write a sensible description of negative resistance. I recommend that the Negative Impedance and Negative Differential Resistance pages be deleted. All that is required is just one or two well written paragraphs and some graphs. This is a very simple topic that doesn't require the over-worked explanations you have created. You are asking for others to join the discussion but you have ignored what others have said. You believe your methods are suitable for your students in Sofia so I would suggest that you write a text book and try to get it published. That will be what some call a reality check. There are many people who use Wikipedia to learn. Your edits deprive them of this opportunity. Zen-in (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the work I was doing on Negative Resistance without consulting me or anyone else. As you can read on your talk page there are others beside myself who think your content is unsuitable for publication on Wikipedia. There are many alternative science websites that you may find are more appreciative of your ideas. Zen-in (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please confine your graffiti to your own personal web page

Please stop plastering talk pages with your theories, graphs, etc. The place for that kind of stuff is your own personal web page. It doesn't belong on talk pages. You have done the same thing to other talk pages Talk:Current_mirror and have been asked by others to desist. I consider that to be graffiti. By the way: The Current_mirror page is very well written. It is a good model for how electronics circuits should be described on Wikipedia. As others have tried to explain to you: Your ideas on "circuit thinking" belong on your own personal blog, not on Wikipedia. We all want to see the pages you have been editing to be opened up so others can contribute their ideas. You have just one viewpoint and it is mostly incorrect. By plastering your graphs, "circuit thinking" ideology, etc on talk pages you are just trying to stake a claim on Wikipedia pages for your own exclusive viewpoint.Zen-in (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Please stop modifying posts further up talk pages as you have been doing on Talk:Negative resistance. It confuses the talk page since replies to a post are replying to something that is no longer there. Talk pages mant to be a record of what was said. They do not need to be perfect in every way. If you really need to retract something in the middle of the page you should strike it out rather than deleting or modifying. If you need to explain, do so at the bottom. SpinningSpark 09:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The end copied from negative resistance talk page

Zen-in, I am not interested in incremental analysis of this circuit. It would be interesting for me to conduct experiments with a real circuit. I used Howland current source to drive the transistor under test in a curve tracer years ago. Also, I investigated it in the laboratory with my students last year. Maybe, this year my students and I will reinvent and investigate this odd circuit in the laboratory. Then we will tell all this on Circuit idea. Congratulations for playing with digital filters; they are to abstract for me. Circuit-fantasist (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circuit-fantasist, If you have an op-amp circuit where there is a voltage across the inputs, because of the high D.C. gain an op-amp has, the output will be railed. It will be entirely non-linear. Your theoretical negative resistance region will be infinitesimally small. Take a look at this article - Schmitt_trigger and go to the schematic under Comparator implementation. In this article the authors show that by using current conservation (Kirchoff's current law: the sum of all the currents flowing out of a node is 0), and treating the + input as a virtual ground, they derive the transfer characteristics of the circuit. They show it is bistable and has hysteresis. When ~~the~~ ~~+ input~~ V_IN goes from a negative value to +R1/R2*VS (where VS is the positive railed output voltage), The output goes from -Vs to +Vs. As it does that the voltage across the inputs (V+ - V-) goes from 0 V to some value greater than 0 V. Where you think the negative resistance should be, there is a hysteresis region. Now if R1 is made very small, the hysteresis region just gets smaller and the transition happens closer to 0 V. The circuit is still bistable. No mention is made of the gain of this circuit in the analysis. But it is in the analysis because they say the transition occurs when op-amp input V+ = 0 V. That is how DC or low frequency op-amp analysis is done. At higher frequencies, closer to the bandwidth of a particular op-amp, the gain is much reduced, because of the frequency compensation most op-amps have. That is a different matter. You are advertising a negative resistor, not a negative impedance. And the last time I checked, resistance was measured with D.C. currents and voltages. Zen-in (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Negative resistance talk page

Please stop posting circuit sketches and discussions of them on the article talk page; it is disrupting the talk page. You have been asked many times not to do this and many different editors have removed them. The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not the circuits themselves, and it is certainly not a platform for attempting to teach the subject. I am going to archive the material yet again. Please do not replace it. I would like to make it absolutely clear to you that I consider this to be disruptive behaviour and you should consider this a final warning before I seek administrative action. The specific policies I believe you are breaching are WP:NOT#OR and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and the guideline WP:TALK. Thank you for your co-operation. SpinningSpark 15:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image permission problem with Image:Line voltage diagram.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Line voltage diagram.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your username

In addition to the issues raised on the current ANI thread, I believe your username is in violation of our username policy. Many of your edits have concerned the www.circuit-fantasia.com website, leading me to conclude that your username is derived from the name of this site. According to the policy, "explicit use of a name or url of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted ... Since usernames that are the name of a company or group create the appearance of intent to promote that group, accounts with a company or group name as a username are indefinitely blocked."

To resolve this problem, you should request a change of username to one that represents you individually; instructions are on the linked page. I'll give you a few days grace to do this before I block this account. If you need advice or more time, you can post here - I'll keep this page watchlisted. EyeSerene^talk 20:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your comment on ANI, please don't feel that you're being penalised over your username (and there's certainly no need to feel humiliated). Very many editors first register under a username that they select, in all innocence, because it means something to them - perhaps it represents an area they are interested in, or a company they work for. Unfortunately this can give the impression to other editors that they have a conflict of interest and will be unable to write neutrally about such things... or worse, that they are actually here to promote them. Even when this is not the case, we've seen so much of it over the years that all editors with such usernames are regarded with suspicion. I asked you to change your username as much to help you as to help us, because by changing it you will (a) comply with Wikipedia policy, thus demonstrating that you are here to help Wikipedia, and (b) perhaps avoid some of the impression other editors have that you're here to promote www.circuit-fantasia.com.

I hope it's clearer now why we request this. Editors change usernames all the time - it's no big deal, and there's no stigma attached. If you look at the requests on WP:CHU, you'll see there are as many reasons as editors :) If you need any assistance, please let me know. EyeSerene^talk 07:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EyeSerene, thank you for the support. You are a precise administrator and your comprehensive explanations are extremely useful for me. Tonight, I will change my username (maybe, with Circuit dreamer or Circuit ideator). Regards, Circuit-fantasist (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think those should be fine, and I'm glad to be of help. I appreciate that you've only been trying to improve our articles, but Wikipedia is a very traditional place in many ways (especially when it comes to new ways of thinking about old subjects), and our verifiability policy means we must rely on mainstream sources and methods. However, the last thing I want is to discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia, because your thoughts and edits are just as welcome and valuable as anyone else's, as long as they comply with our editing policies! Please don't hesitate to get in touch if there's anything I can help with; my talk-page is linked in my signature. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 11:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be most helpful if you'd use a signature that matches your username; very confusing otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the remark. I don't know why the four tildes are replaced by my old user name instead by the new one. I will notify administrators. Circuit-fantasist (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that you need to update your signature in your preferences (click "my preferences" at the top of the page). EyeSerene^talk 07:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. I have already done it. IMO Zen-in and I have managed to resolve the conflict and now we are involved in interesting discussion about ECL. We refrain from editing the main article before clarifying the topic and afford an opportunity to other wikipedians to move the valuable thoughts from the talk page to the main article. We are grateful to you and other administrators for helping us. Circuit dreamer (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's good news, thank you :) All the best, EyeSerene^talk 11:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ECL

You seem to be filling in a bunch of "talk" in old sections, but I don't see how it's moving the conversation forward. If you'd focus on suggestions for what to say in the article, based on where it is now and on what's in sources, we could make progress. And your hand-drawn schematic, clever and information-packed as it is, is probably not what we should stick with. It's too busy, and the overlayed voltage stripes remain cryptic, and it's hard to even see what are the inputs and outputs. I don't mind it being hand drawn -- I think that lends a nice touch; but what do you think we should do to make it more appropriate to the article? Dicklyon (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, I have just (almost) finished my explanations of (generic ECL) circuit operation. For me, it was the most important part of this discussion and of the main article. IMO we do not have a right to edit this page if we do not (really) understand how ECL operates. Thank you for affording an opportunity to present calmly my viewpoint. I have painful remembrances from similar situations when wikipedians were erasing and moving rudely my suggestions without discussing them. Now I am free and will focus my attention on your questions, edits and remarks. Circuit dreamer (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not much of a discussion if nobody is reading it. This seems like way more material than we can productively discuss or use, and way more than in sources that I've seen on ECL. Where do you hope to go with it? Dicklyon (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Op-amp i-to-v neg 300.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Op-amp i-to-v neg 300.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? another ANI complaint?

Wikipedia is all about a lot of different people editing the same article. You should accept this and not get upset when someone changes what you just edited. It happens all the time to everyone. Since you have criticized me, I will offer this in turn: You quite often will do a long series of edits with no other editors contributing. This is not conducive to the collaborative style of Wikipedia. It looks like you are returning to your old ways. Instead of doing 20-100 sequential edits to a page, over a few days why don't you write a summary of what you intend to do first in the talk page? If no-one objects then go ahead and do the edit (not 100). But you should always expect that someone else will come along later and change what you just did. That seems to happen a lot on Wikipedia, whether we like it or not. Zen-in (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit discussion pages from the bottom

No-one reads your updates on previous posts, so please add further discussion at the bottom of the discussion page. I recall other people asking you to do this. Zen-in (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slanderous and impolite statement on Gyrator discussion page

Recently you post a statement reading in part "(BTW, I created it a year ago after Zen-in mutilated the Wikipedia page about negative resistance)". To refresh your memory, most of the edits on the negative resistance page were done by Spinningspark. The impetus for doing these same edits was the consensus reached that the article in question had too much WP:or and idiosyncratic POV. This was about the same time you were asked to change your username. So I did not "mutilate" this article any more than several other editors. Statements like this are unacceptable. An apology and a retraction on the discussion page is in order. Perhaps you need a wiki-break. Zen-in (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gyrator talk page

I have reverted your most recent edit to Talk:Gyrator because it is off-topic. The topic of the page is what should be in the article. The topic is not to explain the circuit, or even to "reveal the magic" of its operation. Please stop doing this, long diatribes on the talk page are seriously off-putting for the casual editor who might ahve a contribution to make. This issue has been raised with you many times so I am sure you already know that this is undesirable. SpinningSpark 20:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have reverted this edit also if others had not replied to it before I saw it. As was stated to you on that page, and many times before, you do not need to explain how the circuit works on talk pages, most of the editors on that page are already well educated in electronics. What you do need to do is find reliable sources for your views on how they work. If you do not desist from these long off-topic posts I will open an RfC and resolve it that way. SpinningSpark 19:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miller effect

Yet again you are trying to justify your non-mainstream contributions to Wikipedia with long arguments, or at least offering to present arguments in your edit summary. You must know by now that this is not how Wikipedia works. No matter how brilliant your ideas, it will be counted as original research if the subject is not approached in the way you describe in mainstream publications. Your current campaign seems to be to describe the Miller effect (and jsut about everything else) in terms of negative impedance converters. If you have reliable sources which present the material in this manner, then fine, it can go in, but please make sure to include the citations with your edits. Otherwise, it is OR, and a long presentation on article talk pages will not change that. SpinningSpark 17:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please remember that it's not good practice to edit your previous comments on a talk page, especially when other editors have already replied to them. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 11:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parallel summer 1000.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Parallel summer 1000.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parallel summer 1000.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Parallel summer 1000.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember where this picture is from; maybe, it was intended for virtual ground, inverting amplifier or similar page. I suppose I have duplicated it in Wikimedia Commons; so, it may be deleted. BTW, the picture is useful since it gives two viewpoints at inverting amplifier: from the first, the two resistors constitute a paralel voltage summer (subtractor) needed for a negative feedback amplifier (the circle in the block diagram); from the second, the two pairs (of a resistor and a voltage source) constitute a current source and a current sink that are connected in parallel to the op-amp input. But I continue considering that there is a minus since the two voltages have opposite polarities regarding to ground. Tomorrow, I go on leave for 10 days and I will be away from Wikipedia. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 20:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring talk pages

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Potentiometer (measuring instrument). Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. You have been repeatedly asked not to edit your posts after they have been replied to. SpinningSpark 12:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not want to have to take action against a good faith editor over this but you have been requested many times not to;

alter your talk page comments as you did in this sequence of edits,
not to post long diatribes on talk pages trying to reason your point of view rather than provide reliable sources as you did in the posts you were editing above.

Please take this as final warning not to continue with this behaviour: all other editors with whom you come into contact find this extremely disruptive. I am hoping that it will not come to this, but I am prepared to block your account in order to prevent further disruption. The change you wish to make to the potentiometer article requires a source with a stature equal or greater than the IEEE source that you disagree with. Your own arguments, however valid and well-reasoned, count for absolutely nothing and it is pointless continuing to fill up talk pages with them.

I know that this is only a grammar correction, but it has been archived. Archives are meant to be a record of what was actually said, not what you would like to have said in retrospect. You do not seem to be able to listen to people on this. One last time:- please stop retrospectively editing your posts. SpinningSpark 13:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I had corrected this page by mistake; then I noticed that it was archived. Maybe I had to notify you of my fault. Thank you for understanding. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 14:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Transistor Transistor Logic Talk Page

Current sinking logic

I would like to know what this vague sentence "TTL is a current-sinking logic since a small current must be drawn from inputs to at logic 0 level" means: TTL is a current-sinking logic since "the current that must be drawn from the inputs is small" or "the current that must be drawn from the inputs must to be small" or something else? And also "...from inputs to at logic 0 level..."? But is the current really small? To say small or big, we have to compare it with another current, in this case, with the current at logical "1". When, is the drawn current (1.1 mA) less than the injected current (40 μA)? No, it is almost 30 times bigger... Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 18:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so how to explain this *compactly* without going on for a full screen of text? I thought it was adequate. What do you propose as an alternative wording? How much precision does the reader really need to understand that some current must be drawn out of the input to maintain a logic 0 voltage level? Later on we give 1.1 mA and 40 uA, take out the word "small" if you think it confuses the reader. --Wtshymanski (talk)

A nominal current level is given in the explanation of current sinking inputs. My complaint with this article is that it has a lot of fractured English, making it difficult to read. An example from the same paragraph- "The input base-emitter junction deprives all the base current of the output transistor (the current is steered from the base..." Maybe an attempt at too much explanation with a simplified schematic. The second transistor has no bias resistor so no current is supplied to that node anyway. It would just float up due to leakage currents. Zen-in (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See if you like my cleanup attempt. I took out a paragraph that didn't make sense to me, too. If someone can explain it and support it by sources, of course we can have it back and work on clarifying it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, IMO you have gone too far in cleaning up the interfacing section. These situations are very important for TTL circuit design; so, they deserve to be included in the article. This morning, I posed the problem to my students on the whiteboard in the laboratory of digital circuits (see the picture on the right). They tried to find answers to my questions in Wikipedia but they did not manage since the answers were removed:) Well, let's discuss these considerations here. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 14:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. TTL with output logical "1" driving a few TTL inputs (belonging to one gate or to separate gates)

In this case (see the green currents in the picture), the input multiple-emitter transistor of the next stage operates in a reverse-active mode where the emitter and collector are swapped. Every emitter-collector junction (every TTL input) acts as a transistor current sink "pulling" a small current (about 40 μA ) from the upper transistor V3 of the previous stage. All these emitter-collector junctions (current-stable elements) are connected in parallel; so, their currents are summed. Thus, the total current is proportional to the number of the parallel connected inputs.

The problem is that it needs even more to make it correct and consistent. I don't see how it's worth it, but maybe if you have sources that teach it this way we could look at what they say, and include this material. The previous paragraph says the inputs will float to a logic 1 level, which means the 40 μA is really a voltage-dependent current that will go to 0 at some voltage; so a huge fanout will but into the margin when it can't supply 40 μA per input, but is that really the fanout limit? I thought the fanout limit was the current sinking ability. Do you have a source that supports this as the thing that limits fanout? Dicklyon (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have good sources from my student years but they are not in English. They give me a good basis for my reasoning but I do not rely on them completely... I hope we will find reputable sources treating this topic; until then we have to rely only on our human reasoning and common sense:)

The TTL input behaves very strange and vagarious when the input voltage increases from zero to V_CC. We may get a notion about this odd behavior by tracking the TTL input IV curve through this change (sorry, I have not found it on the web) and by considering where the input current flows.

In the beginning (V_IN = 0 - 0.4 V), the base-emitter junction of the input multiple-emitter transistor V1 is forward biased; so, the input resistance is linear and completely determined (4 k) by the base resistor R₁. Then (V_IN = 0.4 - 1.4 V), V2 diverts a small part of the input current through its base-emitter junction and switches on. After (V_IN = 1.4 - 1.5 V), V4 base-emitter junction becomes forward-biased as well and begins drawing away a significant part of the input current. As a result, the current changes vigorously; the dynamic input resistance is very small and the input behaves as a voltage-stable non-linear element. At V_IN > 1.5 V, V1 base-emitter junction becomes zero biased and the current becomes zero; the input resistance is infinite. After that point, the base-emitter junction becomes even backward biased while its base-collector junction is forward biased. This is the so called reverse-active mode, in which the collector and emitter are swapped. But note it is undesired here since small current flows from the "collector" (actually, the emitter) to the "emitter" (actually, the collector). We do not need such a "transistor" during the whole 0-to-V_CC transition; we need only two humble diodes - an input backward-biased one and an output forward-biased one (so, DL and DTL do not have such a problem). This "collector" current is small (about 40 μA) as the transistor's "ß" is intentionally made very small (ß = I_"c"/I_b << 1) so this is an attenuating transistor:) Its "collector" current is relatively constant since its "collector"-"emitter" junction behaves as a current-stable non-linear resistor (like the ordinary amplifying transistor). As a generalization, the TTL input transformations are:

1. A real voltage source with internal ohmic resistance R_IN = R₁ (a logical "0" is applied at the input).

2. A real voltage source with internal dynamic resistance R_IN < R₁.

3. An almost ideal voltage source with internal dynamic resistance R_IN = 0.

4. A disconnected voltage source.

5. An almost ideal current sink with infinite internal dynamic resistance (a logical "1" is applied at the input).

You have said above ...the 40 μA is really a voltage-dependent current that will go to 0 at some voltage... Yes, it is true - the input current becomes zero at V_IN = 1.5 V and then changes its direction. But note this point is out of the operating range and it is not admissible. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 20:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. TTL with output logical "0" driving a few TTL inputs...

...belonging to one gate...

Now, the forward biased emitter-base junctions (voltage-stable elements) of the input multiple-emitter transistor are connected in parallel. The total current drawn from the previous stage is about 1.1 mA for a standard TTL gate and it does not depend on the number of the parallel connected inputs (emitter-base junctions). This current is equally distributed between the junctions.

...belonging to separate gates.

In this case (see the blue currents in the picture), the base resistors of the separate gates are connected in parallel. The total current drawn from the previous stage is a sum of the separate input currents of 1.1 mA and it is proportional to the number of the parallel connected inputs. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 14:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed the funny distinction of "belonging to one gate", which I see now really means belonging to one input transistor. From the outside of a package, no such assumptions can be reliably made, and that special case is of no practical importance. Why would you bring it up? In general, long-winded unsourced explanations are not appropriate for wikipedia; if we can't verify them in sources, as opposed to arguing about what's right, they shouldn't be there. Dicklyon (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zen-in, AND DL, AND DTL and (to some extent) TTL are current-sinking logic but their inputs are current-sourcing because of the internal pull-up resistor. Dually, OR DL, OR DTL, RTL and DCTL are current-sourcing logic but their inputs are current-sinking because of the internal pull-down resistor. IMO these descriptive names are misleading since they are based on the present circuit mode, not on the inherent circuit input properties. They assume that two identical logic gates are connected consecutively (e.g., TTL drives TTL or RTL drives RTL). In these arrangements, "TTL current-sinking logic" means that a TTL output (at logical "0") sinks current from the next TTL input; "RTL current-sourcing logic" means that an RTL output (at logical "1") sources current to the next RTL input. But if TTL drives RTL, this current-sinking gate will source current to the next current-sourcing gate; if RTL drives TTL, this current-sourcing gate will sink from the next current-sinking gate. The problem is that the output stages of logic gates are almost symmetrical; they can both source and sink current and they can operate as both sourcing and sinking. In contrast, their inputs are asymmetrical; they can either source or sink current. So, it would be better if TTL was named current-sourcing logic because of its sourcing inputs and RTL - current-sinking logic because of its sinking inputs. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 18:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph doesn't seem to be about the article or how to improve it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was an essay about current-sinking/sourcing terminology. I suggest to move this discussion and this more general topic to Logic gate. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 19:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zen-in, please, explain what you mean when saying: "The second transistor has no bias resistor so no current is supplied to that node anyway. It would just float up due to leakage currents." What is the "second transistor"? What is this node? What will float - the transistor or the node? What are these leakage currents? Where they flow? Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 18:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture next to "TTL with simple output stage" is missing a bias resistor on the base of the output stage. Most TTL data sheets draw the schematic that way but it is a simplification and not useful for describing the circuit. Educational textbooks like Electronic Principles Physics, Models, and Circuits by Gray and Searle, page 870, shows a similar circuit but includes the bias resistor. Just as it is a mistake to consider a transistor as being two back to back diodes it is also a mistake to consider the multiple emitters of a TTL NAND input to be the same as the diodes of diode logic. The ~~latter~~ former are junctions on a transistor and don't "steer" current. They are carefully designed so that none will hog the current when all are conducting. Logic families are not usually mixed. There are all kinds of special cases and considerations. It doesn't make any sense to make new rules of terminology based on the supposition that logic families can be arbitrarily mixed. The paragraphs under "structure and operation"(?) are bloated and very confusing to read. It would be better to have one schematic that more closely represents a TTL NAND gate. It should have the base bias resistor and a realistic totem pole stage. That would allow a more concise explanation section using generally accept terminology. It is very good that Circuit dreamer is enthusiastically introducing young people in Sofia to electronics. But there is the appearance that his employment as an instructor and his Wikipedia activities are too closely linked. Zen-in (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet realized the need of the "missing biasing resistor on the base of the output stage" but I will ask tomorrow my students to help me to see it:)

My students already know that "it is a mistake to consider a transistor as being two back to back diodes" but only in the case of amplifying transistor stages; it is not only completely acceptable but extremely useful "to consider the multiple emitters of a TTL NAND input to be the same as the diodes of diode logic"; they "are junctions on a transistor and do~~n't~~ "steer" current"; they "are carefully designed so that none will hog the current when all are conducting". To convince themselves, last week, at the beginning of TTL lab, they conducted interesting "current-steering" experiments with three identical LEDs supplied by current. First, they connected a LED in parallel to another LED (see the picture on the left) and saw that the two parallel connected LEDs were lighted (the third was connected in series to them). Then, they connected a LED in parallel to two connected in series LEDs (see the picture on the right) and saw how the two series connected LEDs were extinguished. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 22:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your experiment doesn't prove anything about TTL gates and as usual you are misusing the discussion page by filling it with content that is unrelated to the edits of this article. You have been warned several times about this kind of behavior. I am surprised that you persist in this. Zen-in (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that you cannot see the so simple but brilliant ideas behind circuits. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 05:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Your LED experiment demonstrate current hogging but it is not how TTL inputs work. Two LEDs need twice as much voltage across them to conduct. The one LED that is in parallel with them turns on instead. If two PN junctions have closely matched I-V curves they will both conduct the same current when they are in parallel. That is what TTL manufacturers did when they made TTL chips. If the junctions were not matched and there was current hogging the turn on and turn off time of the gate would change depending on what inputs were changing and the parts would be junk. When you are able to make a transistor from two discrete diodes let me know. Zen-in (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zen-in. Circuit Dreamer, you waste too much of our time by the amount of work you create for those of us who want the article to remain finite and well sourced. Cut out the essays, in both article and talk pages. You are starting to remind me too much of User:Brews ohare. Dicklyon (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zen-in, sorry but it is you who are mistaken. The LED experiment above demonstrates exactly how TTL inputs work and also how the output totem-pole stage works. The one LED represents one base-emitter junction of the multiple-emitter transistor V1; the two connected in series LEDs represent V1 base-collector junction and V2 base-emitter junction. LEDs are used instead ordinary diodes since they indicate the current flowing through them; so, there is no need of connecting ammeters that will also introduce error with their internal resistance. Your explanation about how they work is exactly the same as my explanations in the article about this current steering or, if you prefer, current dogging phenomenon (they are the same). This was the main problem in 60's - how to divert the current from T2 input to the input source at input logical "0" - that DTL and TTL designers solved by connecting in parallel voltage-stable elements with different thresholds (one junction in parallel to two series connected junctions). The problem that you have posed above is another problem - how to equalize the input currents during the transition around 1.4 V; they solved it by matching V1 input base-emitter junctions.

There is no need of making a transistor from two discrete diodes. The multiple-emitter junctions are used as diodes: the base-emitter junctions - as diode switches with a logic function; the base-collector junction - as a "shifting" voltage-stable element. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 15:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Dicklyon and others have stated many times your long-winded dissertations on talk pages are disruptive. I moved this latest discussion to your talk page so that it can be deleted from the TTL talk page. You claim that the inputs of a TTL gate are electrically the same as multiple diodes feeding into one emitter. Can you provide any qualified references that this is so? If you are so fortunate as to have a copy of the book I referred to earlier (Electronic Principles Physics, Models, and Circuits by Gray and Searle), you will see on page 870 that the schematic of a TTL gate is drawn with multiple transistors that have their Bases and Collectors tied together. The inputs of this TTL gate schematic are the individual emitters, that are not tied together. A multiple emitter transistor is equivalent to multiple transistors that have their bases and collectors in common. With the same bias on all the ~~gates~~ bases, they will all have the same emitter current when the emitters are connected to ground (through a resistor or the bottom of a totem pole stage that is switched on). You can dispute this all you want but this textbook has been in print for over 40 years and has been used by many EE faculties. The authors, Paul E. Gray and Campbell L. Searle are highly respected. They were both members of the Semiconductor Electronics Education Committee, which developed pedagogical standards for teaching solid state electronics 45-50 years ago. You would be doing your students a great service by acquiring and "scrutinizing" some of their many publications. Zen-in (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Flip-flop (electronics). Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Section is unsourced, the two electronics books I checked do not specify what the "D" stands for. Who is to say that "delay" is correct and "data" is vandalism? Jc3s5h (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have restored it mechanically seeing an anonymous edit... The topic is interesting and it deserves a discussion. "Delay" is misleading to some extent; "data" is too general...but it is more important to say what a D flip-flop actually is. For now, I have restored the old version. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 14:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=November 5, 2010

Hello, Circuit dreamer. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on page "Ohm's law"

I undid two changes on page Ohm's law by anonymous users, one deletion of a section and an addition containing "Twinkle Twinkle little star". Did I do it correctly? For instance your revert yesterday showed as "m (rv v)" in the revision list whereas mine showed as "Undid revision 396348540 by 129.252.20.14 (talk)" in the revision list.

The undo's today are my first (non-manual) ones. Can you review what I did? --Mortense (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no experience in using automated means for reverting. I do it manually by clicking the previous version, editing and saving with a comment "rv v" (revert vandalism). Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 12:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. With regards to using the interface for reverting there is an explanation in this Helpdesk entry. --Mortense (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False accusation

Do not make false accusations of vandalism in your edit summaries, as you did here. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how will you characterize this whole section blanking without any reasonable comment or an elementary discussion? What is this? Should a wikipedian behave in this way? Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 17:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute. The next time you characterize it as vandalism, we shall see what the rest of the Wikipedia community thinks. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flip-Flop merge/restructuring

Kiore has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Just wanted to say thanks for the work implementing the pre-definition restructuring you did today (my time, probably yesterday your time) before the merge. Hopefully your start and Dicklyon's further work will cause the constant editing of this page to settle down. Kiore (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words and the cookie! Wikipedia would be better if there are more people like you! Regards, Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 10:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Keep up the good work. Kiore (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misclick - error is entirely my own

Hi, Circuit dreamer. Apologies for this. A clewless n00bie error by someone who should know better. I've made this kind of mistake before. I must be more careful in future.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you:) Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 14:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relaxation osc.

I appreciate what you are trying to do at electronic oscillator, but you are adding the material. Don't immediately restore it or you will run afoul of WP:3RR. Glrx (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not waste my time; it is valuable. I have listed one similarity and eight differences between the two types of oscillators. If you can, help me with editing them; if you can't, please do not impede me. As I can see, you are not familiar enough with the topic. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 17:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Reminder

You have forgotten the direction you received last year from Administrators - At that time you were told that links from your wikibooks pages were not acceptable and that you should include citations for any material you add to Wikipedia pages; refraining from WP:OR. Zen-in (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Zen-in wasn't the one who re-factored this section, I was, because there was no need for sub-sub-headings cluttering up the contents list.

Secondly, your undertaking to discuss edits before inserting them into articles is welcome. However, with all due respect for Ecoman24's well-intentioned intervention, I think what you need to take away from this is that your idea of what makes an attractive presentation to readers is not necessarily compatible with Wikipedia's mission as a serious encyclopedia, or the normal conventions of presenting such information, or the styles other editors have adopted over years of collaborative working in these areas. Your editing currently gives the impression that you're on a mission to advocate the www.circuit-fantasia.com approach. You should take a look at WP:NOT, particularly the sections on original thought and soapboxing. As I mentioned above, other websites, such as perhaps Wikiversity, might welcome your approach and your ideas... but please don't persist in using them here. EyeSerene^talk 19:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response and for the advices. I have useful resources (circuit stories, pictures and flash movies) located on circuit-fantasia.com that can help understanding circuits; that is why I placed links to them a few years ago. Zen-in has removed all of them. Then I began creating Circuit idea wikibook and placed these links there. If they are the main problem, I will remove them from there as well. Circuit-fantasist (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have no involvement in wikibooks and what they allow or not. The problem seems to be with you putting links to there from articles here. Tarc (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - although Wikibooks is hosted on the Wikimedia Foundation servers, it's a completely separate site from Wikipedia with its own content inclusion criteria. I'm positive your work is a valuable addition to their corpus and very welcome there. However, it's important to understand that our mission on Wikipedia is to inform, not to instruct; it's a subtle difference, but I think all the difference in this case. Our guideline on external links is to keep them to a minimum of directly relevant material that wouldn't be found in the article text if the article was FA-standard. Since FA requires comprehensivity of its articles, this deliberately excludes almost everything :) It's true that many articles fall far short of this ideal and linkspam can sometimes get out of control, but the state of other articles isn't always a good guide to what is permissible. The sort of material that's ideal for an external link would be something like a copy of an important historical document that couldn't be reproduced in the article for reasons of space and perhaps copyright. An unsuitable link might be one that covers the same material as is in the article, even if from a different perspective. EyeSerene 16:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that I want to propose any community restrictions at all here. The essential issue to my mind is to persuade C-F that to write on Wikipedia he must use reliable sources (which does not include his own site or Wikibooks). However, if any restrictions are to be imposed, here is my recommendation for what it's worth;

Circuit-fantasist not to make any edit in article space, other than uncontroversial maintenance, without providing an inline citation to a reliable source.
Circuit-fantasist not to directly insert non-vector graphics into article space. He mus first have his graphics processed by WP:GL/I into svg format or some other format that other editors can easily correct and amend.
Zen-in is not to revert any edit by C-F. He may correct and amend such edit but he may not delete them in their entirety.

SpinningSpark 20:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is quoted from Wikipedia Administrator's noticeboard/incident archive 570 Zen-in (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you distinguish between an article and a talk page? I have not placed Wikibooks links in the article; I have placed an extract from a Circuit idea wikibook article here, in the talk page, only with the purpose to provoke a discussion about these so interesting phenomena... to improve the article... Well, I would remove all the words reminding Wikibooks modules... but if you ever stop (blindly, purposefully and maliciously) removing my insertions? Don't forget that all your actions are written in the history of your contributions and everyone can browse through them to see what you are! Don't you feel ashamed of all your actions? I would... if I only was at your place... Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 22:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original research discussion

Please see WP:NORN#Wein bridge oscillator Glrx (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Circuit dreamer and his disruptive editing

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Circuit dreamer and his disruptive editing. Thank you. Glrx (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Circuit dreamer. I would like to strongly encourage you to participate in the above mentioned discussion. Regards, —Ruud 14:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belated response

Because I'm replying to a point you made back in June Talk:Negative_resistance#There_is_NO_negative_resistance.2C_only_.22negative_differential_resistance.22_.28NDR.29 and I have no reason to assume you would check it, I thought I would point out that your own cites are disproving your point.--SPhilbrick T 21:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Banned by the Wikipedia Community

As an uninvolved administrator, I have reviewed the ANI discussion and concluded that there exists a consensus to topic ban you from editing electronics articles [1]. I have closed that discussion and enacted the ban, with official listing on the Editing Restrictions page [2].

The exact wording of the topic ban is:

1.Circuit Dreamer is banned from editing all electronics articles, broadly construed 2. Circuit Dreamer is banned from editing talk pages associated with above.

There is no community-supported expiration date, the topic ban is of indefinite duration.

You may appeal this to the Arbitration Committee, or back to the community at a future date after you have established noncontroversial edits in other areas that indicate reversing the ban would be productive for you and the encyclopedia.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Circuit dreamer, you are not allowed to edit any electronics articles, even to revert vandalism, as you did here:

Diode–transistor logic 09:19, August 24, 2011

You cannot revert the removal of an external link:

Voltage divider 17:45, August 23, 2011

You cannot fix small problems with punctuation or markup:

Diode logic 13:32, August 18, 2011

None of these are allowed by your topic ban. Further attempts to edit in violation of your topic ban will get you blocked. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have only tested the Wikipedia banning system... As I can see, it works precisely oppressing (to the extent of the most elementary spelling corrections or even reverting vandalism) productive and tolerating mediocre editors. You have seen the fly but you have not seen the elephant... Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 08:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It works to limit your time-wasting ways so that people who are productive can produce. Binksternet (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what has this "productive" person produced to be so strongly tolerated by administrators? Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 13:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the above conversation with Binksternet, you have breached your topic ban multiple times [3][4][5][6][7]. While none of this is contentious or unhelpful, you are clearly continueing to test the limits of your topic ban ("I have only tested the Wikipedia banning system..."). You were clearly warned that this is not allowed and appear to be deliberately trying to provoke a reaction. Consequently, you have been temporarily blocked in order to enforce the topic ban. Further contraventions will result in increasingly longer blocks. Spinning Spark 15:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:V var iv curves 1000.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:V var iv curves 1000.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Deborah Chung's "apparent negative resistance" for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deborah Chung's "apparent negative resistance" is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah Chung's "apparent negative resistance" until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. T R 07:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:R var iv curves 1000.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:R var iv curves 1000.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Files with the same name

Hi Cyril. I'm looking at some files here on Wikipedia with the same name on commons and have come across one of yours! My question for you: is File:Active_v-to-i_1000.jpg the same as commons:File:Active_v-to-i_1000.jpg? I was thinking of simply renaming the first one "Version 1" or something (as it was uploaded earlier), but if there's any actual difference it's probably worth identifying this in the file name. (I also left this same message on your commons talk page - apologies for the double-post; didn't see this was your main account before too late!) Cheers, Nik thestunned 15:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts. The first image is not in use since it belonged to the former Voltage-to-current_converter that was unsuccessfully redirected to Transconductance. I don't know what to do because I hope that someone (one day:) will remove this redirection. Maybe you know what to do? Regards, Cyril. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 17:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyril. Given the license under which you've released them, it doesn't matter whether or not they are in use! I was only asking if they were different so that I may rename them to unique names... What would be a better name for File:Active_v-to-i_1000.jpg? Thanks! Nik thestunned 08:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]