User talk:JNRSTANLEY

Work on Hydraulic Rams complete for now, but open to suggestions. JNRSTANLEY (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I have started expanding some of the material on the AM (Amplitude modulation) article. I will be adding some more in a few days and welcome any comments or suggestions. JNRSTANLEY (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I have done some pretty major work on the Valve RF amplifier article. As always, suggestions appreciated.JNRSTANLEY (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
I think I am finished for now with Radio transmitter design. I have updated references instead of the 1920 books. JNRSTANLEY (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

October 2014
I am presently working on the Antenna tuner  Any suggestions appreciated. I wonder why this article is rated as low importance when it has 100 visitors per day and is of obvious interest to many Ham operators. JNRSTANLEY (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I am very grateful to 76.178.146.43 for his or her help with cleaning up my formatting and making some of the text much more understandable. I really enjoy collaborative writing even when my collaborator is unknown to me. Thanks, thanks thanks! JNRSTANLEY (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You are quite welcome. I am really grateful for your excellent illustrations; the new circuit for the preselector article has given me an excellent idea of how to use my spiffy, old-fashioned, double-tapped 560 µH tuning coil; thanks! Tom Lougheed (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * And by the way, I think that there should be some mention of the Z-match tuner. Alas, I can't do it because don't understand how its bizarre double-tap tuning circuit works. Tom Lougheed (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to have stomped your edit of Antenna tuner
A couple of nights ago, at 15:36 on 15 June 2022‎, I think I stomped on [|an edit you made] while we were simultaneously editing Antenna tuner. I am so sorry. I was still in the midst of emending the § text to accommodate the new 8 × L network graph I'd just uploaded, and was trying to untangle the confused (and possibly occasionally wrong) explanation of the orientation rule. (I'm still inclined to cut back the text in the main article, and leave most of it in the footnote.) In all of that, I think I may have superseded an edit you made at the same time, while distracted by my own, incomplete edits.

My bad. Please feel very welcome to emend the article however you see fit. I've worked on it for way too long, and some of the article reflects my blind spots. And it needs more pictures and fewer words (that's what all the foot-note stuff is about -- some of which is my own sidelined excess, and some of it helpful but obscure additions by others). Your fresher insights might greatly improve the article. 107.115.33.55 (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your very gracious message, and no problem whatsoever, I understood what had happened and knew it was not intentional. BTW, I am presently involved with peer review of an upcoming article in a major publication which I hope will explain the orientation rule more clearly than anything I have found up to now. Once (and if) that is published it could provide a reliable source for a simpler explanation that could replace some of the "confused and possible occasionally wrong" explanation. And I agree that the text in the main article is getting a bit long). JNRSTANLEY (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh yes please! I have fumbled with the description of the L-network orientation rule for some time. If you squint, you might see two or three layers of it in the footnote. What I really wanted was just two or three sentences that cover it all, followed by a warning that it is not an impedance step-up or step-down but rather resistive part only. Unfortunately the name "step up" given by a previous editor who started the article, meaning "step the antenna up to the radio" is what I would call a "step down" as in "step the input down to the output". And then I got all wrapped-around the axel needing to compare resistance on one side to reciprocal conductance on the opposite side. There has to be a cleaner, clearer way of writing that out; hopefully, you and your co‑authors will have worked out all that already. Anyway, I think I've removed most of those errors, but the footnote isn't short enough. Once you've published, if the article is available for free somewhere reliable, perhaps a lot of the information could be conveyed by reference rather than included in the text, with the eager-beavers going into the published article.


 * The ATU article ideally would need no (or very few) footnotes, and would be only about half as long in the remaining text as it is now. And have more pictures and graphs. I've thought for some time that the article should be split up into multiple sub-articles, perhaps one article on each antenna tuner type (so perhaps, ~one printed page each, or several pages if a general class of tuners, like the "Tuned transformer" designs), with the current article renamed to "Antenna feed matching" or similar (to evade the dreaded misnomer "antenna tuner") and reduced to a summary article, similar, say, to Antenna types. Needless to say, all of the math and almost all of the schematics would be moved out, into the sub-articles.
 * And thanks again for your gracious forgiveness of my thumping around with your edit.
 * Astro-Tom-ical (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Pending the mentioned article which is probably not forthcoming for six months or more, I am wondering if I shouldn't just rewrite that section and use Phillip Smith's book on the Smith Chart as the main reference. The information is all right there, but just needs to be presented in a shorter summary. Using a Smith Chart divided into regions is the best way to understand this, for those who use them. For those not familiar with them, it is necessary to talk about conductance values, which would also leave some readers out. It can be explained by simply referring to the critical complex impedance as 50 ohms shunted by a reactance. Some who think in admittance may not like that, but I think it reaches a wider group. (By saying 50 ohms, I am of course explaining things based on that Zo. I think using a different Zo could be mentioned but which requires different numerical values) As to splitting off, a separate article on the L network might be a good place to start, what do you think? JNRSTANLEY (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have on my sandbox the present section "Types of L networks and their uses" and at the end have added my suggestion for revising this entire section, including the graphic, which originally I did, and I think you improved on. However, I think the new graphic is easier to understand, and the text greatly simplified.  Let me know what you think and make suggestions.  If we can agree on it, I can replace the section, but lets have a bit of back and forth before I do that.
 * JNRSTANLEY (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume you can access my sandbox. I am a bit new at sandbox use. JNRSTANLEY (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)