Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resonant capacitor


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. —  Aitias  // discussion 21:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Resonant capacitor

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was previously declined for a Prod, the declining admin giving the reason; ''With over 400 hits from a Google Books search I very much doubt that the whole subject is a hoax. If any content needs correction that can be done by editing.'' I still believe that this article is a hoax, and that the closing admin is mistaken in the interpretation of the ghits results. I will give a more detailed explanation after nominating, but in short I think the author has subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) used genuine terminology to give credence to a ficticious device.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  12:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is a technical article and I am sorry, but it will be necessary to delve into the technicalities to explain why this is a hoax. Firstly, what I understand to be meant by phrase "resonant capacitor": it is a phrase that  does commonly occur in electronics, and it means a capacitor that is being used in conjunction with another component (an inductor) to form a resonator.  What it is not is some special kind of capacitor.  The phrase is used in the same sense as the hallway carpet, that is, a carpet that happens to be in the hallway.  It is still just a carpet.  Likewise, a resonant capacitor is still just a capacitor which happens to be being used for a particular purpose - a purpose for which we already have an article; LC circuit.  The article not only claims that resonant capacitor is a special component, but that it is actually an inductor.  Because the phrase is actually genuine, the article can point to a number of external links using it.  But not one of them uses it in the sense that is claimed.  Nor do any of the google books hits - I spent a considerable time trying to find one.  The issue is further confused by the fact that inductors do have parasitic capacitance which can cause them to resonate.  All inductors do this, you don't have to make them specially, and I cannot help but conclude the author is using this fact to sow further confusion.  There are a number of applications given for the device which all sound plausible on the face of it.  The first is to spread the spectrum of a clock frequency.  I will go out on a limb here and declare that nonsense.  A resonant circuit does not cause spectrum spreading in any way, if anything, it will restrict the spectrum through filtering action.  Similarly the robotics application makes little sense, low-pass filtering and damping are the usual solutions to those kind of problems.  I won't even bother taking apart the aerospace application, any physicist will immediateley recognise that pseudo-scientific jargon.  The so called mathematical explanation consists of a sequence of basic electrical formulae, which are all probable correct, but actually explain nothing at all.  And even the trivia section, dropping in flux capacitor as another buzzword, is certainly not true - the device in the film looked nothing like an electrical wound component which is what this is supposed to be.  My final point, if this device exists, why is it that the largest electronics supplier in the country cannot sell me one?  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  13:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete although capacitors are integral to any electrical resonator, the opening sentence, "A resonant capacitor is an … inductor," belies any truth or coherence. No inductor is ever called a capacitor. Furthermore, the lead claims that said capacitors "spread signal energy over the frequency spectrum," which is also nonsense: all LTI systems respond to sinusoidal inputs with a proportional sinusoid, with input and output frequencies combining linearly. Nonsense which purports to be technical knowledge is a hoax. Moreover, the term "resonant capacitor" is not in common parlance, and article is orphaned, so a redirect would be pointless. Full disclosure: I was personally notified of this AFD. Potatoswatter (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "A resonant capacitor is an acoustics and electrical engineering term for a frequency resonant inductor." No it isn't.  Delete per nom. Tevildo (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Resonance in an LC circuit is already discussed in another article, and as far as I'm aware no one makes or even talks about "resonant capacitors" as devices in their own right. Saying that, I guess there are so many types of component available that someone may have marketed packaged LC circuits as "resonant capacitors".  Even so, they are certainly not notable devices. (I was also notified of this AFD) Papa November (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I notified two editors who had been taking part in a WikiProject Electronics collaboration on the capacitor article because of their technical knowledge of the field. The wording of the notification asked them to review the article, it did not in any way canvas them to !vote in a particular way (or at all).  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  15:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Read no further than "Electrons from β- decay are absorbed in the magnetic field while positrons from β+ decay are absorbed in the electric field" :)) NVO (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BJAODN. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is not uncommon in high-speed circuits to see something like an inductor becoming a capacitor, but even considering that, the article is nonsensical. WillOakland (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * question to avoid confusion, might it be a good idea to have an article, but for the article to consist of the explanation given by SpinningSpark here, protected if necessary? DGG (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am flattered that you want to turn my words into an article, but in this particular case I think it would be a bad idea. It is not a likely confusion (actually, unheard of as far as I am concerned) and an article would only be promulgating an unnotable hoax.  Even a redirect, I would be against, as stated by several others here, it would actually be sowing confusion rather than disambiguating it.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  21:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to LC circuit. DGG's suggestion could also work, as the term gets enough GScholar &c. hits (in context of LC resonance) that someone might wander across the term and search us. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This article sounds like it's describing an LC filter ( which comprises both a capacitor and inductor, which resonate ). However, the tone of the article suggests that resonance, rather than being a property of the circuit, requires a special "resonant" capacitor (a little like saying you need "resonant brass" to make a trombone from).  Either that or the article is about an LC circuit as a discrete package; not sure I've ever seen such a beast.  There are crystal and ceramic resonators that have similar properties, and they might be mathematically modeled as a capacitor with a coil, but the article doesn't mention those.  There is such a thing as a spread-spectrum clock in some motherboards; this is done to make FCC compliance easier.  Its possible that a ceramic resonator might be used in such a wideband clock, or in motion control which is also in the article, but the article doesn't go into detail on why you'd use them versus other designs.  The material on resistance to gamma rays and the "flux capacitor" from Back To The Future, on the other hand, is new to me. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is fundamentally a hoax. While it does have some true elements, they are mainly just applications of LCR circuits. --Polaron | Talk 17:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.