Talk:Piezoelectric Transformer

Untitled
''

Specs
It may be worth noting that a typical CCFL inverter has specs of approximately: Input = 12 V, 1 A, 1.2 Watts. Output = 1 kV RMS, 1mA, 1 Watt. Frequency: 50 kHz. This means it is driving a 1MOhm resistance. A 3 pF capacitor has a 1 MOhm reactance at this frequency. So, hand-capacitances can have a notable effect (that's why you can get the tube to light if you only connect one end, and hold it in the middle).


 * Er No! You have given the open circuit voltage.  On load, the output voltage is much lower, typically a few tens of volts.  The high open circuit voltage is required to strike the tube.


 * Also the reason that you can light the tube in the manner in which describe, is because your body has sufficient capacitance to provide a conduction path at the high frequency involved. 109.145.21.107 (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Specs would be the most useful and interesting part of the article. Household multimeters cannot measure voltage at 50kHz and most oscilloscopes cannot be connected to high voltage. Tip: Use a diode and capacitor to measure DC VPP with a multimeter and capacitative coupling (bring the probes close to the insulation of the wire) with an oscilloscope. RealBorg (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Experimenting
If experimenting with these, note that: * The high voltage will definitely hurt you. It isn't "just like static"; there's an appreciable amount of power there. * The high voltage, especially if combined with a sharp point, will cause E-fields which can exceed the breakdown voltages of many insulators. Thin plastic wires are not insulating! * Sparks burn PCBs. Burnt PCB is carbonised. Carbonised tracks conduct. Don't draw arcs across the PCB itself. * Arcs emit UV light and ozone. Both are moderately harmful. * Don't smash a CCFL tube - they contain mercury. * After a while of "playing", with unmatched loads, you'll destroy the transistors. Upgrading to metal-bodied ones (eg BC108 or BC441) will make them longer-lived. * Sharp points (eg pins) make arcs easier to start. So does placing an arc-gap above a flame. Passing the arc through a flame makes the flame much brighter (carbon-arc). The resulting ion-wind can blow out a candle. * Circuits don't need to be closed. Try connecting up two neon "candle" bulbs. Connect one terminal of each bulb to the high voltage; leave the other ends disconnected. Both bulbs will light.

Translation.
This article appears to have been translated from a non English language by a non English speaking translater. It's meaning is indecypherable. 86.133.10.99 (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hell, this article looks like it was quickly converted from some poor Chinese guy's PowerPoint presentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Segin (talk • contribs) 07:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

delete? Notebook schematic link
Why do you need to remove it? Photos of inverter circuits for notebooks are a reliable source as they can be found in large numbers on ebay and Alibaba. We can find many photos with OZ960 installed in the inverters. So, the schematic in which the OZ960 is used are based on reliable sources. --Neotesla (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * See WP:EL. We don't link to unreliable sources, and there is no question that is a not a reliable source. Random photos are not sources either. MrOllie (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't know the history of inverter circuits too much. Denying the inverter circuits provided by these two companies is equivalent to denying the history of notebook inverter circuits that have become widespread all over the world. It is highly possible that you were actually using it.--Neotesla (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Either find an actual source (like a textbook or peer-reviewed article), or leave it out. Patents and random photographs do not establish weight. - MrOllie (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So I showed the link to the lawsuit, which was the actual case. Read the abstract and background in that link. The complaint is a clearly reliable source. Neotesla (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While lawsuits also shouldn't be used, I didn't remove anything like that. What are you talking about? MrOllie (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have already read the patent cases. Who invented when is stated to be a reriable source. It is written that the technical content is not authorized, so be careful. At the same time, it was written in Wikipedia that even the Science papers may be withdrawn, so be careful. The definition of the reliable source is complicated. Neotesla (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In additional, lawsuits are also reliable sources, such as who and who fought, when lawsuits occurred and which patent number is infringed. These are all government-guaranteed records of official documents. On the other hand, opinions by the parties to the proceedings cannot be trusted. Neotesla (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why leave only the Linear Technology link? You are very unfair. Do you want to promote Linear Technology? Are you a Linear Technology sales person? Neotesla (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Original research and primary sources
Once again, this article was packed with original research and improperly used primary sources. I removed it all again. Wikipedia has rules and policies for good reason, they must be respected. MrOllie (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Unlike other example articles, what you deleted has already been socially implemented. So your single decision deletion is wrong. Before one thing is implemented in society, it is realized under the approval of many people, including many development engineers, factory mass production managers, distribution managers, and executive managers. Therefore, the fact of social implementation has very high probative power. And the journal articles are also vetted for publication in the journal by responsible editors. It is by no means an original research by a single author. Do you know about the relationship between social implementation and original research in Wikipedia's view? Neotesla (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What you just wrote here is incomprehensible. I have no idea what you are attempting to communicate. MrOllie (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Please explain in detail why you removed this description.
 * [[Image:Rosen Piezo Transformer.png|250px|thumb|Rosen type Piezoelectric Transformer]]
 * Therefore, major electric manufacturers competed to develop inverter circuits for CCFL using a piezoelectric transformer which invented by Rosen, and the miniaturization of the inverter circuit was about to be realized.
 * This piezoelectric inverter circuit is very small and at the same time, it is very high efficiency compared to the CCFL inverter circuit that uses a non-leakage transformer. As a result, it was seen that it will be widely used as the LCD backlight inverter for notebook PCs.
 * ^ 50 Years Of Piezoelectric Transformers. Trends In The Technology --Neotesla (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The citation did not actually support all of the content. MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "all of the content"? I told you that these are aleady socially implemented. Common sense for those involved in the industry is included in the "all" you seek. Are you going to raise the hurdle conditions for citations that far? It is due to your lack of knowledge and is beyond the level of judgement generally required. That is your own standard not general. Neotesla (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks are not a substitute for following Wikipedia's content policies. MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

In the end, no one seemed to support your viewpoint. You're being too strict with the criteria for OR.. All the sources cited in this article show that social implementation has actually been done. Isn't social implementation the strongest third-party evaluation? To achieve it, approval from many people is necessary, from research and development to manufacturing and sales. Sometimes, it's even stronger than peer-reviewed papers, and there are many people involved in evaluating such achievements.--Neotesla (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you using google translate to communicate or something? 'Social implementation' doesn't mean anything in English. It certainly has no relation to Wikipedia's content policies, which you continue to violate. And WP:OR is not optional, and we cannot use self published or primary sources. Waiting a bit and making the same problem edits isn't going to work. MrOllie (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * When did I ever use self-publishing as a source? Many of the citations are materials from each of the well-known manufacturers with a proven track record in this industry. There are not a low-level manufacturer that can claim original research on your own. Neotesla (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * All manufacturer sources are self published by definition, as are your repeated insertions of your own website. MrOllie (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You made an appeal to the community once, but nobody replied. This has made your decision more likely to be arbitrary. Neotesla (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to head to the noticeboard again. No replies is not evidence of anything - it is certainly not support of your policy violating edits. MrOllie (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please kindly consider making an individual request to the community members and appealing to them to re-open the discussion once again? Neotesla (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want it done, you should do it. MrOllie (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)