User talk:Scheinwerfermann/Archive 5

Reversion of "efficacy" edits on the HID page.
Hi,

Okay I'm not logged in. I do have a WP account but didn't bother to use it when I made those edits, and just to be consistent I'm not logged in now.

I moved the term "efficacy" from a description of efficiency down to a new paragraph describing HID efficacy, and inserted the word efficiency into the description of their efficiency. You reverted that change on the flawed assumption that I had not read the linked articles. I had already read those same articles (eg on "luminous efficacy") and would like to know why you think the content of those articles contradicts my edit in any way.

Let me explain my point of view. Efficiency is useful work done divided by energy input. That means the same as the text in that paragraph that was talking about "efficacy". Efficacy means exactly the same as effectiveness. In this case, the ratio of visible light power emitted in lumens divided by power input in watts is efficacy since 1) it is only the visible portion that makes the light effective for its task, the rest doesn't count, and 2) this number is always greater than 1.0 and it has units so it cannot be an efficiency rating.

But the non-visible radiation must be included when you talk about efficiency since of all the energy input, most is converted into electromagnetic radiation (which may be useful or not depending on the task) and a very tiny portion is consumed in chemically changing the lamp materials (or else the lamp would work forever). The total power emitted in radiation is less than the total power input. The lamp cannot be 100% efficient regardless of its efficacy, and even a lamp that achieved the maximum possible efficacy will not be 100% efficient.

To see this is correct you only need to think of a heat lamp that keeps food hot at a takeaway counter. It's the same 200 watt light bulb that I could put in my ceiling at home. The efficiency is the same regardless of the application. However if I use the light bulb at home it has a lower efficacy than if I use it to keep food warm because in the latter case it desirable to give off large quantities of heat as well as light. The efficiency is the same because the light bulb will burn out after the same time in both applications.

The original text said: "they give a greater amount of light output per watt of electricity input" and it is important to realise that without being specific about the band of the spectrum, the word "light" in that sentence means all EM radiation and not just the portion useful for stimulating human retinas. In other words, it was describing efficiency and not efficacy.

That's my justification for saying that any ratio of energy output to input is efficiency, but any mention of visible lighting effectiveness is a luminous efficacy. That's consistent with the linked articles, but the original HID text was ambiguous and therefore misleading. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.48.69 (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your detailed elucidation. It will be more productive to have this conversation when you log in. When you are ready, please let me know by logging in and posting a quick note here. Thanks —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * More productive?? Well, yes, but only because you've decided to snub an anonymous user. You're being petty already. That means you know you're wrong. Goodbye! - 202.63.48.69 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.48.69 (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it means I don't feel like shadowboxing with someone who has not taken the time to understand the reason why efficacy is the correct term and cannot even be bothered to sign his comments on my talk page, that's all. When you are ready to have a grownup conversation without putting words in my mouth, I welcome it. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: 842U
Thanks for your message. Basically, if you think a user is a sockpuppet because of behavior that an independent human being is unlikely to do, that's a valid suspicion. I can look into it. My time is limited for the next week, so I may not be able to give it priority. You can ask User talk:Alison, who IIRC did the checkuser on 842U, to report if she sees any other sockpuppets from that IP range.

I can try to answer questions about Israeli automobiles etc., but again, please be patient. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to note, per this RFCU you suspicions were confirmed and all the accounts have now been blocked. Tiptoety  talk 01:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Great user page
You don't know me but I stumbled across your user page and wanted to compliment you on its content, too bad more editors don't read it and think like that. :) Nice job. IvoShandor (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comments currently being regarded as hostile
I am no longer interested in hearing what you have to add. Heels firmly dug in. (Dddike (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC))


 * That's unfortunate; it's difficult to improve Wikipedia productively with one's heels firmly dug in. If you feel my comments constitute a hostile attack, I recommend you follow the applicable procedures to have my behaviour investigated. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Valiant tail light
The picture was taken at the Walter P. Chrysler Museum and if you look closely, you can see the reflection of me taking the picture on the bumper (also, I put the image through a dozen filters because it was by accident taken with a night-time setting so I tried my best to knock off that sickly-looking yellow from the image). - Dyno Tested (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2008 (EST)
 * And not to put too fine a point on it it, if the pic was taken professionally, the photographer seen in the bumper's reflection would be using a parallax camera with bounce lighting and NOT a digital cell phone camera. - Dyno Tested (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2008 (EST)
 * It was aluminum? Was it the 225 on the stand without a sign? Anyway, there was a lot to take in, I didn't want to look like a tourist taking endless pictures. . . I do regret not getting one of the 'Color Me Gone' though. - Dyno Tested (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2008 (EST)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-15 WikiProject Automobiles open
Informal mediation has been opened at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-15 WikiProject Automobiles at the request of Dddike, with you being named as a party to the dispute. The dispute is over the adoption of this process page without adequate consensus and other tangential issues. Named parties to the dispute are: Dddike, user:IFCAR, user:Scheinwerfermann, User:Daniel J. Leivick, user:PrinceGloria, User:842U. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Unstrike my text
Please un-strike any comments of mine that you have stricken. It is against Wikipedia rules to do so. 842U (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead infobox image convention
To cut a long story short: yes, we do have a consensus. Two filibustering/grumbling users who are unlikely to move from their long-established positions are not enough to counter the rest of the WikiProject IMHO. So, please go ahead and add.

As concerns the debacle with 842U and his prolific incarnations, as well as his one-person fanbase, I guess we need to take it very cool. Their level of activity and, so to speak, aggressiveness basically mirrors our actions on the subject. I am guilty myself of prolonging the debate on this sidetrack topic, so I guess we just need to step back and watch the fire burn out.

This decision might be a difficult one for some to digest, so we need to give them time. As concerns past actions, let 842U drag you before any bodies he or she deems appropriate and defend yourself with consideration - I am sure you can justify your position, and whenever appropriate, perhaps make some amends. I hope you won't perceive this as paternalizing or sth, it's 2:35 AM here and I am not sure if my judgement on wording is appropriate anymore.

Regards,

PrinceGloria (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm, I hope my opinion wasn't the sole one you've asked for when determining whether to move on or not - while I am happy with the general course of action ;), I guess either we knew there was consensus beforehand, or you'd better make sure with a wider scope of users who appeared to agree with the consensus and alteration of the guideline, unless there is a valid reason why my opinion was specifically needed to confirm... Anyhoo, good day & week, it's dawning here and I am totally effed up with my work... PrinceGloria (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Top 10 best selling cars in Britain
I'm cross-posting at the talk pages of the participants at Articles for deletion/Top 10 best selling cars in Britain. After the article was deleted, I requested that it be userfied so that I could attempt to improve it. I've now made some small alterations, which are explained in greater detail at User talk:DeLarge/Top 10 best selling cars in Britain. Basically, I've flipped the page so that the latest years are at the bottom (to make the TOC more intuitively navigable), and converted the 2005-2007 data into tables which now include precise sales figures.

The work done so far was quite labour-intensive, so before I commit more time to this, I'd appreciate any feedback to say whether it's worthwhile continuing with the years prior to 2005. Thanks in advance for any comments you can offer. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Named Refs.
Got it, I'll take the appropriate steps in the future. Anyway, that's the last of the highlights of the 1960-1962 Plymouth archive I raided at the Detroit Public Library's Skillman Branch. If you're ever in Detroit again, I recommend a visit! - Dyno Tested (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2008 (EST)
 * I'm guessing you're with Daimler, if that's the case, one of you guys at party near here tried to convince me that Herbert Grönemeyer is the David Bowie of Germany! Anyway yea, old Hemis sound like nothing else; I saw (and heard) one go through the phases on a dyno a few months ago in Anaheim, and headers DO make all the difference. - Dyno Tested (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2008 (EST)
 * The SRT10, the UPS truck on acid! That's a pretty unholy sound it is. A journalist friend of mine interviewed Weertman for that incredible book he put out a few months back. If his business card is titanium, that sure carried over on the book's metallic sheen.- Dyno Tested (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2008 (EST)

Thank you
Thank you for your action today at Talk:Fuel injection. Sincerely Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Valiantmanifold.jpg
The manifold's installed on my '73 Dart Swinger; the 225 block is orginal but the cylinder head, according to what the former owner told me, is from a late '70s truck that I had milled at a local shop. The advantage of this head is there's no aluminium spark plugs tubes to spew oil out of, yet it adds 20 pounds that's balanced out by weight saved with that aluminium intake! The shit one I tried was the aluminium plasma-weld two-barrel manifold from an '83 Dodge Meiser; pinhole leaks everywhere, it sucked. Anyway, you got a Slant-6? —Dyno Tested (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2008 (EST)
 * Yea, I guess I could have tig welded that aluminium two-barrel (instead of chasing leaks), but it seemed pointless to dick around any further with something that's inherently defective. Was the Hyper-Pak yours? — Dyno Tested (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2008 (EST)

Mediation - are we done?
You have been involved in mediation at: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-15 WikiProject Automobiles. Discussion has subsided, and I think that the issues have been resolved if not specifically, more by identifying the reality of an apparent consensus. Is there any need to continue or should we close this process? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Report Filed
User report of vandalism against you... |Vandalism Report

Please fix the link if it is incorrectly formatted or incomplete, I'm not entirely sure it is correct, but it should get you close. 64.107.58.130 (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Said report has been cleared with no action, since you were not active at the time of the report. —C.Fred (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Your monobook needs to be updated to avoid an error
Hi,

Your monobook needs to be updated to avoid an error. The convert template code has changed and it will no longer accept 'sq' or 'cu' with metric units. Thus '|sqkm|' will have to be changed to '|km2|'. All existing pages have been updated. Any new use of the template with '|sqkm|' will produce an error on the page. The code for non-metric units is unchanged and can be either '|sqft|' or '|ft2|' format.

For example: should be changed to
 * $2 sqft
 * $2 sqft

If you want more advice, please ask at Template talk:Convert. Or ask me, I would be glad to help you update your monobook code. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry
Sorry I didn't comment on the car images discussion. Chergles (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)