User talk:Puffingbilly

Delta Sigma modulation article
Hi PuffingBilly, I noticed that you have made a lot of contributions to Delta-sigma_modulation and I wanted to check with you before I add a graph of a simulated performance comparison of delta-sigma at various oversampling/bit-depth to original rate with no dither.

I've posted the graph on Talk:Delta-sigma_modulation. Thanks Darrell.barrell (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Darrel.barrel I think it a very good idea that the discussion of delta sigma modulation be expanded by any means and I certainly personally welcome your contribution. My interest was initially engaged by the errors I perceived in the current literature on the ADC which I have explained in the NBs. In order to tackle this I found myself more involved than I originally intended writing all of section 1 with the exception of minor quibbles and nitpicks added by others. I think I have achieved my original intention and I do not wish to become involved in the larger field of modulation techniques which I think would better serve the enquiring mind if they were lumped together and dealt with as one topic.

Nonetheless the current page serves as a forum for those with a special interest in DSM and I certainly wish you well.Puffingbilly (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Fairey Firefly
Hello Puffingbilly. On 10 August you edited Fairey Firefly to add some information about your personal experiences at the Fairey factory at Brentford in 1945. See diff. This is a personal comment so I have moved it from the article to the Discussion page. Best regards. Dolphin ( t ) 12:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Block Diagram Delta-Sigma.svg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Delta-sigma modulation issues
Puffingbilly, if you're willing, stick around and let's try to convert what you've done to a form that will meet Wikipedia's requirements of being WP:Verifiable. User:Guy Macon has agreed to back off while we try to work it out.

For starters, if you can point out any books or papers that approach the explanation or analysis as you do, using a charge-feedback integrator for voltage-to-pulse-rate conversion, we could cite that and make sure the analysis pretty much agrees with it. I find (with this Google book search) a few tantalizing snippets, but I don't have an easy way to get the original articles. For example: Most others contrast V-to-F with delta-sigma, but do not use an unclocked V-to-F circuit like you do to approach, analyze, or explain delta-sigma. I agree it's a valid clever analysis, but without a source it's not the way we should do it in Wikipedia.
 * Electronic Design - Volume 36, Issues 8-12 - Page 54 1988 – "The basic delta-sigma converter contains two major blocks: a closed-loop modulator and a digital filter (see the figure). ... operates somewhat like a cross between a tracking a-d converter and a charge-balance voltage-to-frequency converter."
 * Instruments & Control Systems - Volume 54 - Page 191 – 1981 – ... and up to 10 MHz, outputs. Charge-balancing is a good method of converting voltage to frequency (Fig. ... 12: The "delta-sigma" method is used for voltage-to-frequency conversion when output pulse must be synched to a clock."

Want to help? Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Given the Wikipedia rules, as I said, I devised it ab initio, and so there will be no reference available, unless you know better,or know of some appeal mechanism, we're stuck. Puffingbilly (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There might be a somewhat cackhanded way around this problem, with a somewhat limited search, I found these two sites quote the article exactly.
 * https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Delta-sigma_modulation.html
 * https://www.secret-bases.co.uk/wiki/Sigma-delta_modulation.


 * We might quote those as sources or at least demonstrate that the article is well accepted. Puffingbilly (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that would be what we call WP:Citogenesis. Instead, let's look for good sources to help with a rewrite. I have a few books, and ordered the Candy and Temes 1991 edited volume of papers, which might have some older stuff about motivations, analysis, tutorial-ish stuff, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no desire or intent to break the rules.

I've been thinking about the effect of the rules which, with this item as an example, prevents a simply worded tutorial, which would never qualify as a learned paper and was never intended to, nor was it expected to be contentious, being presented in Wikipedia. Because it was not of learned paper quality and deliberately so I think your chances of finding anything published are a good approximation for zero. Sorry I can't help further I don't have much time left and there are other things I need to finish. Best of luck.

If the effect achieved is the effect intended, is it possible that Wikipedia intends that only those who already have had very expensive access to further education may benefit from using Wikipedia? Just asking. Puffingbilly (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)