User talk:LiveRail

=LiveRail Talkpage=

AC vs DC
I find your comments highly entertaining, so I am not going to respond. Suffice to say, I understand electrification far better than you could ever know as I have been doing it for over 20 years. The statement by either your "sock" or some other deluded author about the skin-effect was priceless, and had me in stitches.

With regards to raising the voltage from 660V to 750V in the inner London area, if you had any clue whatsoever about the effects that would have not just on electrification, but on train operations then I might give you some respect. In the "real" world of railways, system integration is fundamental. That means understanding not just your own discipline (e.g. signalling), but also how it impacts on other disciplines, and how you can be affected by them. Raising the system voltage is not just an issue for the electrification department ... it requires detailed study and analysis.

But you stay in your "fantasy" railway world, and stay happy and ignorant, and leave the real world to experts that know what they are talking about. Bhtpbank (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It is clear from your comments that you most certainly do not understand the subject to the extent that you claim you do. Systems integration happens to be my speciality.  Wikipedia (and indeed the railway world in particular) is full of self professed experts like you who know sweet didly squat.  Your personal knowledge, in any case, does not qualify as an acceptable reference for Wikipedia.  Exactly where you get the idea from that losses in DC systems are higher than in AC is anyone's guess as any half competent electrical engineer knows it is the other way around (and I could produce no end of references to support that).  The skin effect is very real and limits any copper conductor operating at 50 Hz to a practical size of around two thirds of an inch diameter (you can make them larger, but there is no point as the resistance does not reduce).


 * It is the main reason why many overhead lines have more than one conductor per phase though it does also reduce the series inductive losses and reduces corona losses. The effect is between 10 to 100 times worse in steel (depending on exact type and quality) because it is magnetic limiting a steel or iron conductor to around one millimetre or so at 50 Hz (the use of 16.7 Hz only allows a 50% increase on that).  How many conductor rails have you seen that are that small?  Did you actually take the trouble of reading the linked article where you will find no shortage of citations and references supporting the issue plus one of the better Wikipedia articles?


 * I have not seen a single reliable and verifiable reference from you for anything that you have claimed.  – Live Rail   &lt; Talk &gt;


 * You have great entertainment value. And your postage stamp sized knowledge is a joy to behold. Thank you. Bhtpbank (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Anyone who claims to be a professional electrical engineer who has no understanding of


 * Losses in AC systems compared with loses in like voltage DC systems
 * Skin effect in AC systems
 * Relationship between DC voltage; R.M.S. AC voltage and peak AC voltage


 * cannot be anything other than a fraud. Especially given that the last point is taught practically in the first week of the first year of any electrical engineering course and would almost certainly be in the first few chapters, if not the first chapter, of "Electrical Engineering for Dummies" – Live Rail   &lt; Talk &gt;

Question about negative resistance
Hi LiveRail,

I came across your excellent contribution to the negative power factor debate on Talk:Power factor. I wondered if I could pick your brain on a related topic: negative resistance.

As you mentioned on Talk:Power factor, the passive sign convention defines power consumed by a load as positive but power produced by a source as negative:
 * $$P = -IV < 0 \,$$

How about the DC resistance of a source? Formally, in an electric generator or battery that is producing V volts and I amps, positive current is leaving the positive voltage terminal, so by the passive sign convention the current is negative, so
 * $$R = {V \over -I} < 0 \,$$

What I am wondering is whether the DC resistance (static resistance) of a power source is regarded as negative in the electric power or traction industries? I have education in electronics but no industry experience, and I haven't been able to find much references on it. The position in the electronics industry seems to be that there is no such thing as negative static resistance, just negative differential resistance, but I don't know about the electric power industry. There has been a great deal of debate about this on Talk:Negative resistance. I am rewriting the Negative resistance article (you can see my draft at User:Chetvorno/work) and I would appreciate any comments you have on it. -- Chetvorno TALK 16:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The position is much the same in my industry. Negative (static) resistance is an energy producer as the current would flow the 'wrong' way.  As a passive element, clearly such cannot exist.  But (say) a DC motor that would normally present a positive resitance load while operating as a motor could be considered to be a negative resistance load whilst operating as a generator.  However, I am not aware of anyone in the industry who would actually do so.

I'm sorry to have taken time to respond, but as you may notice, I am not a particularly regular user of Wikipedia. Good luck with the article. I will have a read of your draft if time permits. – Live Rail  &lt; Talk &gt;  15:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, sir. -- Chetvorno TALK 18:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs
Just wondering if you have anything more to say b/c I plan on making appropriate corrections backed up by sources and discussed on talk within the next couple of days.TMCk (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If you corrections are anything like the nonsense you have posted on the talk page, then very likely. – Live Rail   &lt; Talk &gt;  08:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Since it doesn't belong on the article's talk page... "Contrary to claims otherwise, the mercury is not recovered when the lamps are recycled because by the time they are disposed of, almost all of the mercury has been adsorbed into the glass from which it is virtually impossible to recover economically." Economically? Maybe? But it can be done (page 27) and companies are making money out of this new technology (just one of several examples). And I don't have to be a tech-freak to know that mercury isn't absorbed into the glass. That would make a real bad barrier to keep it in, right? Just some comments to think of next time you approach me. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Just the very fact that you used the wrong word clearly indicates that you haven't got a clue what you are talking abount. I didn't say the mercury is absorbed, I said it was a d sorbed (different process).  It is adsorbed into the glass, the phosphor and the parts of the electrodes that do not incandesce.  As the lamps age they dim considerably and if they have an unusually long life, eventually just glow a dull pink colour because there is practically no mercury left in the gaseous filling.  Where do you think this mercury has gone?  The argon and neon is also adsorbed, but the effects are far less pronounced over the lamp's life.


 * Forgot about that: "I can only assume that you are one of the ranks of, so called, environmentalists who are desperate to underplay the unacceptably high levels of mercury contained in these lamps." I couldn't care less about your personal "conclusion"... Such silly allegations are less than helpful.TMCk (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah! Truth touced a nerve did it? – Live Rail   &lt; Talk &gt;  11:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
You have been identified as using a sock puppet to carry out edits. Bhtpbank (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Further edits have now been identified as being done by a sockpuppet which you operated. I have recommended a block. -Bhtpbank (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have deleted two unwarranted allegations of the above from Talk:Railway electrification system. Just to let you know that I have also had to delete your responses to those allegations.  Though you responses may have been valid, neither the allegations nor the responses belong on an article talk page  as they are not aimed at improving the article.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Bhtpbank: Unfounded accusations, abuse, foul language and threats. Thank you. This has progressed from the unfounded allegation of sockpuppetry above and my deletion of those allegations.

There is no suggestion of malfeasance on your part. This note is a courtesy as you may wish to contribute to the ANI. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

VIC 1112 and IEEE 488 on the Commmodore computers
If these guys are to be believed, even the VIC-1112 interface didn't convert from the serial bus to IEEE 488. Just like all the cartridges for the C64, it was a PIA (well, two PIA-like parts) on the address/data bus, along with an EPROM full of software. It's enough to shake my faith in the reliability of IP address authors. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I though I had made that clear on the article. The VIC-1112 is all drawn out in Commodore's schematic with their wonderfully binary drawing number 1110010 Rev A (marked as released for production).  The 6522 (of which, as you note, there two) is described by MOS technology as a 'Versatile Interface Adapter'.  Effectively it is a PIA with a timer and a serial port thrown in.  The diagram clearly shows that it connected to the VIC-20's cartridge/expansion port and not the serial bus.  I shall pop over and check what I did say at the article.  – Live Rail   &lt; Talk &gt;  13:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. When I re-closed the discussion I had not noticed that you had already agreed to the re-open. Sorry about that. Chillum 15:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. All's well that ends well. – Live Rail  &lt; Talk &gt;  15:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Undoing the sockpuppet of blocked user Veryverser
Hi LiveRail, I noticed that you've been reverting a lot of the IP user's edits because the IP is used by the indeffed. However, even though you won't be faulted for doing so per WP:3RRNO, many of these edits, such as the one to List of New York City Subway stations, were actually constructive (changing an inflexible template to a more flexible template).

On a side note, the IP belongs to the New York Public Library, so it very well could have been someone else doing the edits besides the person editing under "Veryverser". All of these edits are not constructive. However, all of these edits afterward aren't of the same style. Epic Genius (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I take your point about the New York pulic library, I was unaware of that. However, I don't see your point about not being faulted under WP:3RRNO as I have not made more than one revert to any article (except where the original edit came in multiple parts as it was necessary to revert the later changes to revert the original edit).  – Live Rail   &lt; Talk &gt;  12:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What I meant by my comment was that such a revert would be basically uncontroversial, but you should consider all circumstances of the edit. Epic Genius (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=682876860 your edit] to Display size may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * the method used for the first generation of CRT television, when picture tubes with circular faces were in common use. Being circular, the external diameter of the bulb was used to describe their
 * than the diameter of the tube due to the thickness of the glass surrounding the phosphor screen which was hidden from the viewer by the casing and bezel.   This method continued even when cathode