Talk:Drive dielectric barrier discharge

Context
Apparently there is enough context to identify what this article is talking about. For those of us not so perceptive, which Ghost Busters movie used this as a prop? --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot tell what the article is aboutConstant314 (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Constant314 (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears to be about driving Dielectric barrier discharge devices, which do have an article of their own. It seems to me that this "article" can be easily and beneficially absorbed into that one; assuming, of course, that references are found for this article's claims. I don't even see a need for leaving a redirect here. Jeh (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It`s another of those articles that could help support another article with content. It may not be diversive enough to be sought out exclusively by the reader. I have added a some visual content to Daelectric barrier discharge, and a merger proposal tag. Both article could do with clarifications.Francis E Williams (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support-I am in favor of the merge proposal.Constant314 (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that "help supporting another article" is justification for this article's existence. We don't have separate articles on driving LEDs, or LCDs, or relays, or SCRs; that information, where it exists, is in the articles on the respective devices. So it should be here. Jeh (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the use of the word "support" is wrong, "enlarge" or "substantiate", "improve", add content was my first thought.Francis E Williams (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"Merge and redirect" is what I plan to do unless I see an objection. This article has no context on its own, and next to no content. We shouldn't expect the seeker of knowledge to have to roam all over the Wikipedia collecting enough pocket lint to make a cloak. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Silent???
This article claims these things are "also named silent discharge". I've seen the demonstration at the Deutsches Museum that includes the event depicted by the new picture at Dielectric barrier discharge (two electrodes separated by a large glass plate) and let me tell you, it is anything but silent. The claim of "silent" here needs further explanation, or else it is wrong, or the picture is misapplied. Jeh (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of the (non-enclosed) glass plate image is to provide the visual effect of discharge across the dielectric. In this case air. Having been within a few inches (and somtimes in direct contact with), EHT DC discharges of early 1950s projection set CRT connections, I can confirm it is loud. (Thunderstorm?), I think the "silent" may refer to the "unattended operation", or does it really imply "inaudible"?. If it is unatteneded operation, where does the "driver" technology stem from, as in "computer graphic driver software". It needs further reading of the patent application to clarify the statement.Francis E Williams (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Having read the patent detail (which is in the public domain), it appears to refer to a DC controlled layer device, not unlike an Avalanche diode or Zener diode. The theory is that it is of high impedance until the control (trigger) signal is applied. For further information please rad the patent reference where ever it ends up.Francis E Williams (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)