User talk:Jdpipe

Today's edits.
Hi Jdpipe. I see you have been expanding Wikipedia's coverage of heat transfer. That's great. I'll take a look at the new intensity article in a moment, and do some cleanup on it. A couple of comments on your edits:
 * Don't use more than one solidus ("/") in units. Anything more than a simple ratio of two units should be written with exponents, to prevent ambiguity: W/m2 is fine, W/m²/sr/Hz is not.
 * Don't change superscript two's into Unicode 2's. The superscript two 2 is considered better typography, both because it renders more consistently with other math notation, and because it separates the content (the 2) from the style (superscript). If you want to use Unicode ²s instead that's fine, but don't go changing them in existing text, and try to stay consistent with the rest of the article.


 * The location of the '2' is part of the content because it doesn't mean 'multipled by two', it means 'to the power of two'. Superscript 2 is not just 'style' as it is in the case of "2nd". Jdpipe (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I had that concern too when I first saw this, but it's still probably better to consistently mark superscripts as superscripts rather than special characters. In any event, that would have to be debated over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (mathematics).--Srleffler (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm shortly going to propose merging Intensity (heat transfer) with radiance. Wikipedia articles are organized by topic, not by name. If one thing has two different names, it gets one article. Conversely, two distinct things that happen to share the same name get separate articles, with a disambiguation page if necessary to distinguish between them. --Srleffler (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a big problem with 'intensity' and 'radiance'. Today I was reading the original Max Planck book about radiation (I cited it somewhere), and he uses the term 'intensity' as well as 'specific intensity' (at least in the english translation that I read). On the other hand physicists seem to keep writing that this use of the term is 'confusing' -- which is almost to say that this use is wrong even though the pioneer in this field used that term. Also, people have written lots of HTML-comments saying that we shouldn't redirect to Intensity, etc etc. As far as I can tell, the use of the term 'intensity' is very current and very correct as I wrote it, and shouldn't be considered to be a deprecated term. So I set up this parallel page 'Intensity (heat transfer)' which can be written in the accepted engineering nomenclature, and linked up with other engineering/heat transfer/thermodynamics/mechanical engineering pages without confusion and constant redefinition of terms. Thoughts? Jdpipe (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a big problem with how this term is used in the real world. "Intensity" has many incompatible meanings. Just considering the application of the term to EM radiation, there are four meanings that I know of. Worse, authors who come from a particular discipline within physics use the definition from that discipline without necessarily being aware that it is not universal, so they are not always careful to define what they mean. This can lead to disputes when people with different backgrounds work on articles on Wikipedia. So, usage of the term "intensity" is confusing. In terms of who is wrong, the answer is pretty much everybody. There is some technical agreement (I don't recall where—perhaps part of the SI standards?) that all uses of "intensity" by itself are deprecated, as applied to EM radiation. The correct terms are "irradiance", "radiant intensity", "luminous intensity", and "radiance". Actual usage in the field has not conformed to this proposed standard, however, and physicists in different disciplines continue to use "intensity" to refer to all of these things. As to Planck, he probably predates the attempt to deprecate the use of this term.


 * For Wikipedia, articles that are specific to a given discipline should use the terminology that is typical for that discipline, but should be careful to define what the term means and give its units, and should link to the correct article for the subject, not to Intensity. As to the articles on the different meanings of "intensity", they should be merged by concept, unless there is a good reason not to. So, Intensity (heat transfer) should be merged into Radiance, with discussion in the latter article of the alternate name and the usage of the concept in heat transfer. Intensity (heat transfer) can be retained as a redirect, so in heat transfer articles you could link the term using " intensity " rather than " intensity ", if you prefer. Note that either way the reader sees "intensity", but is directed to the correct article for the definition of intensity that is being used.


 * In some places I have added edit comments discouraging linking of "intensity". This is because links are by subject, not by word. If "intensity" is used in its colloquial sense, it should not be linked to any of the technical definitions of the term and probably shouldn't be linked at all, since the MOS discourages linking of common words. In the SI radiometry template, I added a note discouraging linking because someone kept linking the word "intensity" in the Radiance line to Intensity, which forwards to Intensity (physics)—this article is on the W/m² use of the term, which is not the correct meaning for the word as used in that context. The word could be linked to radiance, but there is already a link to radiance on the same line of the table. It's less confusing to just leave the term unlinked.--Srleffler (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * [Copied here from user talk:srleffler]:
 * Hi Srleffler -- you commented on my talk page that multiple solidus in units of measurement is ambiguous. As a oftentimes computer programmer, I have to debate that point. Firstly, which is more ambigous: W/m/K or W/m·K? I think that people will find the first reads better (as in 'feet per second per second') but the second is cleaner on the page. If one observes systematically an operator precedence system '*' > '/' > '·' then there is no ambiguity. I think that many people prefer the exponential form for units because they don't appreciate that units like W/m·K can be perfectly explicit and unambiguous. Add to that the fact that kg/m² can be typed easily on any keyboard and is pure unicode, whereas Wm¯² isn't pure unicode, requires verbose HTML markup and is buggy when sent in emails. I think that engineering communication, at least, is clearer with the solidus! Rebuttal invited (and also interested to know where you got this 'rule' from, too) :-) Jdpipe (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Jdpipe, I happened to see your message on Srleffler's talk page. The convention of not writing double slashes is apparently recommended by the SI system (see SI unit). Double slashes are fine in computer source code and emails, but not in formal prose such as on Wikipedia. Han-Kwang (t) 13:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Han-Kwang. I believe other external mathematics style guides also mandate using at most one solidus. The examples at hand (W/m/K or W/m2/sr) are not too bad, in that they will be interpreted the same way regardless of whether order of operations is used. They also have the advantage of being written the way the units would be said aloud. The usage is too informal for technical use though, and may lead to bad habits where the solidus is used in ways that are truly ambiguous. Part of the problem is that order of operations is not typically used when writing units. Parentheses are rarely used (and, arguably, discouraged). When people write W/m·K, they often mean W/(m·K), not (W/m)·K as would be implied by order of operations.


 * Disagree, see below. Define '·' as higher precedence than '/' and they all makes sense. Jdpipe (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The preference for 2 over ² is covered at Manual of Style. The reasoning given is: "Do not use the Unicode characters ² and ³, but rather write 2 and 3 to produce the superscripts 2 and 3. The superscripted 2 and 3 are easier to read, especially on small displays, and ensure that exponents are properly aligned (compare x1x²x³x4 vs x1x2x3x4)." Manual of Style (mathematics) also deprecates the unicode superscripts. In addition to this argument, I have seen their use discouraged somewhere on general principal: a superscript 2 is still a 2, and can be searched for and recognized as a digit, without any special handling. It follows the preferred pattern of separating style from content: the content is an ordinary numeral 2, and the superscript styling is determined by CSS. Also noteworthy: Unicode subscripts and superscripts says that in many fonts these characters are not aligned correctly for use as superscripts and subscripts, but rather are aligned for use in making inline fractions such as ⁴/₅. Personally, I use the unicode characters in email rather than superscripts, because I can type them faster (ALT-0178), but I use the superscripts on Wikipedia.--Srleffler (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The 2 code is much harder to maintain, takes many more keystrokes and can't be read in the source code for a page. Superscripts forced HTML lines to be spaced further apart than normal, messing up the overall typographical look of the page, too. For anything that is really a mathematical expression, I think that $$$$ should be used (including all mathematical symbols such as $$I_\lambda$$ that can easily be done using HTML). IMHO that is the correct way to separate content and style -- to me, use of and are messing with that, because your markup no longer makes clear the different between mathematical expressions and other stuff. As for units of measurement, I have only very rarely seen measurements that include exponents greater than 3. The one I can thing of off the top of my head is the stefan-boltzmann constant, which has units W/m²/K 4. I'll live with that one-off inconvenience for the sake of being able to type and read other exponents easily without HTML markup. I respect your point about not arbitrarily removing other people's sups and subs but I don't think it's the most effective way of doing things when it comes to units of measurement. Jdpipe (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with S. on the statement "When people write W/m·K, they often mean W/(m·K), not (W/m)·K as would be implied by order of operations." According to Order of operations, the centered dot has higher precedence than the division. I didn't know that until I looked it up today. Han-Kwang (t) 21:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a new one to me too, but according to the article it would have to be either a dash or a heavy dot: W/m-K or W/m•K. --Srleffler (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just a matter of what you choose to define. Given that you already have the × operator in the 'normal repertoire' of mathematical operators, it makes sense that the '·' operator should have higher precedence than that, I think it's intuitive that W/m·K = W/(m·K), because the slash is physically bigger than the dot. I have never seen heavy dots used for units in textbooks, so I can't see how that usage could be considered conventional, and also the dash is clearly in danger of being confused with a minus sign... Jdpipe (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor issue
Hi Jdpipe, I've noticed that you've marked all your edits as minor, when quite often they are not minor edits. See WP:MINOR, thanks. Marasmusine (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Marasmusine, I'll try to uncheck the 'minor edit' box when making future changes. Jdpipe (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Invite to Canberra Meetup #2
--.../Nemo (talk • Contributions) 16:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Laplace operator
Hi Jdpipe. Are you sure about this? The article Laplace operator gives no preference. Or is this a preferred notation in the field you are working, or from how you learned about the Laplace operator? Further I do not care about it, I was just wondering. Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

R-value and thermal resistance
Hi. Just wanted to put down a few words on why I undid the changes you were making to the R-value formula. The opening remarks in an article should form a capsule summary and lay a foundation for what follows. One could elaborate on how thermal resistance is related to heat conductivity and the dimensions of an insulator but that could be dealt with later in the article. A better analog for electrical resistance would be $$\Delta x/kA = R/A$$. Fourier used $$UA$$ to find the heat flow (quantity of heat per unit time).

One might do a "circuit analysis" for a building and assign thermal resistance values to walls, windows, floors and ceilings, compute the heat flow through these components for given inside and outside temperatures and then find the rate of heat input needed to maintain an equilibrium. I don't know if anyone wants to go into that much detail in the R-value article.

Fourier is a bit dated. He was limited by his time and some of his conclusions are way off. The mathematics he used still has meaning today. He might be criticized for supporting Napoleon though his options were limited. But it was Fourier who put the Theory of Heat on a sound mathematical basis.

I think we want to keep the analogy with Ohm's Law. The expression "thermal resistance" alludes to this. What is referred to as Fourier's Law is the formula involving thermal conductivity. It is the vector form of the law. The analog form of the this law involves areas because the boundaries usually encountered in heat problems are surfaces. --Jbergquist (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I meant to say scalar form of the law in contrast with the vector form. It been a rather difficult week. --Jbergquist (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi J. I disagree with your approach to defining R value in terms of phi_Q, because this a symbol that is not present in any engineering textbook that I have seen -- Moran and Shapiro, Holman, Zemansky, Incropera & DeWitt, Cengel. So it's straight aware confusing the educated engineer who would understand the DT/(Q/A) equation without explanation.


 * Secondly, I think that your notion of using the electrical analogy with R values is wrong and furthermore leads to unnecessary confusion. In our course at ANU, and in the textbooks by Holman and by Incropera and DeWitt, the electrical analogy is rigorously built up using thermal resistances, which are R_th = R/A. This is inherently more sensible, because one can think of a wall made up of different materials with different areas and work out R_th values for each of those elements (wall, window, door, etc), then using a formula for parallel resistances, it is simple to work out the overall thermal resistance of the wall. Going back to the definition of R_th, one can *then* work out the effective average R-value of the wall. This approach is vastly more intuitive. With R_th, series and parallel resistances work naturally. With R values, only series resistance notions work cleanly.


 * So, about electrical analogies, one absolutely would want to cover that, but this page is the wrong place for that, because of the R vs R_th thing, and the desire to avoid presenting multiple electrical analogies within one sub-discipline. Jdpipe (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said elsewhere I used &phi;q for consistency within Wikipedia and tend to think of heat flow as a transport phenomenon. I do not think of the R-value as the actual "thermal resistance". (It looks like Fourier introduced this particular formula for dealing with heat flow across a layer of air while studying the heating of the Earth.) And I would agree that Rth is a better definition of thermal resistance and that "thermal conductance" (U-value x Area) works better with parallel heat flows. The R-value may be easier to measure than the U-value over time under changing conditions.


 * I also agree that this would not be the best place to go into detail on the thermal regulation of buildings but one might include the use of Rth in a sample problem to clarify its connection with the R-value. --Jbergquist (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I might help if improvements were made to the notation. The letter R is used for resistance and using it for the R-value may result in some confusion. If we adapted the partial differential notation, ux = &part;u/&part;x, we could denote the heat flux by $$\dot Q_A$$ with $$\dot Q$$ being the heat flow. This suggests RA for the R-value and the formula would be $$R_A = \Delta T/\dot Q_A$$ with R = RA/A which I think is closer to what you wanted to do. $$R = \Delta T/\dot Q$$ would be the equivalent of Ohm's Law. --Jbergquist (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Or a script R could be used for the R-value: $$\mathcal R = \Delta T/\dot Q_A$$ which may be even better. --Jbergquist (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If the dots are a problem as when text is used then one could define q = dQ/dt for a heat flow and the heat flux would be qA. Q is often used to represent a quantity of heat in Chemistry and Physics courses. In the literature one has to keep track of the context. A consistent rule might be to use lower case letters for derivatives or a parts of a whole. Were you were concerned with dimensional analysis when you made your changes? --Jbergquist (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I still object to the nomenclature used here. We should be able to define R-value without first having to defining some other symbol... deltaT / (Q/A) seems much preferable to me. If can be generalised with 3-D vector operators etc in the text body, but this simple 1-D definition is appropriate for the first cut. Jdpipe (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On the matter of U-value, the first place most people see U-value is in the context of heat exchanger analysis. We need to generalise our treatment of U-value as "overall heat transfer coefficient". Jdpipe (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Actitime


The article Actitime has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Doesn't appear notable; I can't find any sources other than press releases.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Prezbo (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd invite you to compare with other software in this category (link at bottom of the page). This category of software is just not sexy, doesn't get much press other than what the vendors generate. I have no vested interest in this though, do whatever you want. To me, the software is notable for being free (beer), very usable, and cross-platform, in a market where few other good options exist IMHO. Jdpipe (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Invite
You may be interested to come to the Wikipedia celebration on 15 January in Canberra. see http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the Canberra WikiMeetup on 20 November 2011
Hi! We're having a Canberra Wikimeetup on 20 November 2011 at Siren Bar in Gunghalin from 2pm to 4pm. It's most just a chance to chat with other local Wikipedians, get a chance to go a different sort of bar (which is reasonably kid friendly, serves real food, and has non-alcholic options), and, if you're interested, learning more about what Wikimedia Australia and local GLAM projects are happening. We'd love to see you and any Wikipedia/Wikimedia/wiki loving friends you have there. --LauraHale (talk) 07:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Canberra meetup invitation: January 2013
Hi there! You are cordially invited to attend a meetup being held on Wednesday 9 January 2013. Yes, that is tomorrow. Sorry about the short notice.

Details an attendee list are at Meetup/Canberra/January 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in ACT)

Canberra meetup invitation: February 2013
Hi there! You are cordially invited to attend a meetup being held on Sunday 24 February 2013. Sorry about the short notice.

Details and attendee list are at Meetup/Canberra/February 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 08:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in ACT)

Proposed deletion of MINOS (optimization software)


The article MINOS (optimization software) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable software. No evidence of awards, charting or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. No independent refs in > 5 years.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Canberra meetup invitation
Hi, you're invited to the Canberra meetup which will take place at King O'Malley's Irish Pub in Civic on 17 February 2016. Bidgee (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Canberra meetup invitation (August 2016)
I'll be in Canberra from the 29-30 August, there is a planned meet-up at King O'Malley's (though I'm open to suggestions) from 6pm on the 29 August. Sorry for the short noticed, only had the trip confirmed this afternoon. Bidgee (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cc-by-2.5-au
Template:Cc-by-2.5-au has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~ Rob 13 Talk 06:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Pantelides algorithm for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pantelides algorithm 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 Articles for deletion/Pantelides algorithm 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion
As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Canberra meetup
Hi, there will be a meetup in Canberra on the 20 January 2018 at 7pm, I hope you're able to make it but understand that this is very short notice. Bidgee (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:NovikovEngine.pdf


A tag has been placed on File:NovikovEngine.pdf, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * The image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated. (See section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)
 * It is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use. (See section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)